## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Operators need one activity feed for human, agent, plugin, and
system changes
> - The existing audit endpoint returns only rows that have agent
attribution
> - The full audit view also requires a dedicated permission
> - This pull request adds an explicit all-actors scope with basic and
privileged access tiers
> - The benefit is that company members can inspect the shared activity
history while sensitive attribution and export controls stay protected
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The company audit activity endpoint and the board audit route.
**Subsystem affected**
Server REST API and board UI routing/API contracts.
**Current behavior**
The agent-action audit endpoint excludes activity without an agent ID.
It also rejects company members who do not have the full audit
permission.
**Proposed behavior**
Callers can opt into `actorScope=all`. A company member receives all
actor kinds with sensitive attribution fields removed. A permitted board
user receives complete rows and can use attribution filters. The default
scope and CSV permission remain unchanged.
**Reason and benefit**
The board needs one chronological activity source for user, agent,
plugin, and system actions. A two-tier response keeps the feed useful
without widening access to detailed attribution or export capabilities.
**Breaking changes**
None. The endpoint keeps the existing agent-only scope and permission
behavior by default.
## What Changed
- Added `actorScope=all` to the unified audit query and included
activity from every actor type.
- Added a company-readable basic tier that removes run,
responsible-user, agent, and details attribution.
- Kept attribution filters and CSV export behind
`audit:view_agent_actions`.
- Added route and integration coverage for basic readers, permitted
readers, pagination, filter denial, and all actor kinds.
- Added the missing unprefixed `/audit` redirect and company route
classification.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-action-audit-routes.test.ts
ui/src/lib/company-routes.test.ts --reporter=verbose` (35 tests passed)
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- The all-actors query can return more rows than the legacy agent-only
query. Cursor pagination and existing limits bound each request.
- The basic tier intentionally exposes action and actor-kind context. It
removes detailed run, agent, responsible-user, and details attribution.
- The legacy endpoint behavior remains the default, which reduces
compatibility risk.
> The roadmap marks activity log and action attribution as shipped. This
change improves that existing capability and does not introduce a
separate workflow system.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5.6-sol`, 114K context, agentic reasoning with tool
use and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The server can preserve eligible agent runs during a controlled hot
restart.
> - A path change moved restart state from the Paperclip home root to
the instance root.
> - A staged update can therefore make the old server and the new server
read different intent files.
> - The old server then drains live runs, while the new server can start
without a shutdown snapshot.
> - This pull request adds a correlated compatibility handoff and
records the live preflight set.
> - It also verifies the target process instance on Linux, macOS, and
Windows.
> - The benefit is complete and safe run classification across the path
upgrade.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue covers this defect.
**What happened?**
A staged hot restart can run an older server that reads
`hot-restart-intent.json` from the Paperclip home root and a new server
that writes the file under the instance root. The old server misses the
request and uses graceful drain. The new server later finds its marker
without a shutdown snapshot. Before this change, that state could
produce an empty loss list even when live runs existed before restart.
**Expected behavior**
The old server must receive the PID-targeted restart request at its
legacy path. The new server must correlate the legacy shutdown snapshot
with its instance-scoped request. Every run that was live during
preflight must appear as adopted, finalized while down, or lost. A
reused PID must not let a stale marker claim a different process
instance.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a server version from before the instance-root marker change.
2. Keep one or more local-agent heartbeat runs active.
3. Stage a current build and request a hot restart from that build.
4. Observe that the old server reads only the home-root path while the
staged build writes only the instance-root path.
5. Observe graceful drain and a new-server intent that has no shutdown
snapshot.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The path transition entered `master` in #10045. The hot-restart adoption
flow came from #9647. This fix targets current `master` and
compatibility with the immediately preceding home-root behavior.
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server built from source with controlled service hot
restarts.
Related work: #9628 is the original broader hot-restart feature PR.
#10556 addresses embedded PostgreSQL lifecycle behavior and does not
address marker-path compatibility.
## What Changed
- Write an authoritative instance-scoped intent and a correlated legacy
home-root handoff marker.
- Merge a legacy shutdown snapshot only when immutable request identity
fields match.
- Prevent a non-default instance from consuming an uncorrelated
legacy-only marker.
- Record preflight running heartbeat IDs and reconcile snapshot
omissions from current database state.
- Serialize marker claims, snapshot writes, stale recovery, and matching
cleanup with recoverable per-path filesystem leases.
- Read process start identity on Linux, macOS, and Windows to
distinguish a reused PID from the original server.
- Require identity for new restart requests and fail closed when a
supported platform cannot provide it.
- Classify older markers by comparing the replacement server boot time
or operating-system process start time with the request time.
- Close the preflight database client explicitly and use a root-safe SQL
query.
- Add focused unit, platform-branch, database-backed, and CI regression
coverage.
- Document the compatibility handoff, process identity probes, and
instance-scoped report path.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/hot-restart.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t
"hot-restart|old-server legacy|preflight live|preflight run|spawn
identity before hot restart"` — 24 tests passed and 90 tests were
skipped across 2 files.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/hot-restart.test.ts` — 17
tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-watchdogs-routes.test.ts -t "restarts a
stalled claimed run"` — 1 test passed and 10 tests were skipped.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-action-audit-routes.test.ts -t "allows an
agent with issue:delegate"` — 1 test passed and 7 tests were skipped.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
- GitHub Actions — 26 of 26 checks passed at
`55a79cb029be8b1dc89926d9d89ccd2181266d5c`.
- Greptile — 5/5 at the same head with no unresolved current-head review
threads.
## Risks
- The legacy handoff path is shared across instances. Exclusive claims
and per-path leases prevent overwrite and match-before-delete races.
- Process identity uses platform commands as a fallback when the health
endpoint has no identity. Linux reads `/proc`, macOS and BSD use `ps`,
and Windows uses PowerShell.
- A supported-platform identity probe failure aborts the restart. This
fails closed instead of replacing an unknown live process.
- Older intent files do not contain process identity. The server
compares the replacement boot or process start time with the request
time when those values are available.
- A preflight database read can fail before the marker is written. The
command fails closed instead of claiming a restart whose live-run set is
unknown.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The exact deployment model ID and
context-window size were not exposed by this runtime. Reasoning,
repository editing, shell execution, test execution, GitHub CLI, and
Paperclip API capabilities were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Operators need an audit record of agent actions across tasks,
comments, documents, approvals, and runs
> - The permission-gated audit read API provides that record, but
operators cannot inspect it in the product
> - A readable UI must preserve company boundaries, server-side
permission decisions, and redaction
> - Audit exports must also be safe to open in spreadsheet software and
must record the export itself
> - This pull request adds company and per-agent audit views plus a
guarded CSV export
> - The benefit is a searchable, filterable, and reviewable agent action
history with direct links back to work
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Feature.** This change adds the frontend and CSV export for the agent
action audit log.
Refs #9731 and #9735.
- Problem: agent actions are recorded, but operators have no readable
product surface to inspect or export them.
- Solution: add a company audit page and a per-agent Audit tab that use
the permission-gated audit API.
- Alternative: build a separate plugin-only surface. This was rejected
because the existing permission model already supports a unified,
server-authoritative view.
This pull request targets the audit epic branch, which contains the
merged #9735 audit API.
## What Changed
- Added a company Audit page and sidebar entry.
- Added a per-agent Audit tab with a fixed agent filter.
- Added filters for agent, responsible user, action domain, entity type,
and date range.
- Added task and run links, responsible-user context, cursor pagination,
and readable action text.
- Added a permission-denied Enterprise card for callers without
`audit:view_agent_actions`.
- Added a CSV export that is permission-gated, capped, self-audited,
CSV-escaped, and protected against spreadsheet formula injection.
- Preserved the merged audit API cursor validation, redaction, and
sub-millisecond pagination behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/audit/AuditFeed.test.tsx` — 6
passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/agent-action-audit-routes.test.ts` — 8 passed with
embedded PostgreSQL.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed across all workspaces.
- `pnpm build` — passed across all workspaces.
- `pnpm test:run` — all completed shards passed except one
environment-sensitive CLI assertion caused by injected static AWS
credential variables; the exact test passes 8/8 with those variables
unset.
- Manual Chromium QA exercised the populated feed, active filters,
permission-denied card, per-agent tab, and CSV export.
## Screenshots and Manual QA
- [All audit states exercised in
Chromium](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9744#issuecomment-4998997001)
- [Detailed browser report and per-agent tab root
cause](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9744#issuecomment-4998771061)
The per-agent redirect defect found during QA is fixed in this branch.
## Risks
Low to moderate risk. The UI and export route are additive and use the
existing company-scoped permission gate. The main risks are large
exports and spreadsheet interpretation. The export is capped at 10,000
rows, records truncation accurately, and prefixes formula-like cells as
text. There are no schema changes or migrations.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8, 1M context, extended thinking, tool use,
and code execution produced the original implementation.
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 (deployment ID and context window not exposed),
reasoning, tool use, code execution, browser-test orchestration, and
GitHub review tooling repaired and verified the pull request.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Dotta