## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A company is the top-level container, and the company General page
holds its settings
> - Two of those settings did almost nothing: the brand color only
tinted the generated company icon, and the attachment size limit sat
under the deployment-level `PAPERCLIP_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES` cap that
already bounded every upload
> - A setting that changes one icon hue, and a setting that can only
lower a limit the operator already set, are not worth the page space or
the code that carries them
> - This pull request deletes both settings from the UI, the validators,
the API contract, the server, and the database
> - With the deployment cap as the only limit left, the message a person
sees when an upload is rejected has to name that limit in terms they can
act on, so the raw byte count becomes a human-readable size
> - The benefit is a shorter company General page for every deployment,
one attachment limit instead of two, and less code between an upload and
its ceiling
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue. The description below follows
`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml`.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The company General page (`/company/settings`), the `PATCH
/api/companies/{companyId}` and `PATCH
/api/companies/{companyId}/branding` request contracts, and the
attachment upload limit on task, case, and company-import uploads.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: `ui/`, `server/`, `packages/shared`, `packages/db`.
**Current behavior**
The company General page shows an "Appearance" section with three
controls: Logo, Brand color, and Attachment size limit. The brand color
is a hex value that feeds one thing — the hue of the generated company
pattern icon. Companies that never set one already get a hue derived
from the company name. The attachment size limit is a per-company byte
count stored on `companies.attachment_max_bytes`. Every upload path
clamps it against the deployment-level `PAPERCLIP_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES`
cap, so the per-company value can only lower a limit the operator
already chose.
**Proposed behavior**
The Appearance section keeps the Logo control only. The company pattern
icon always derives its hue from the company name. Every attachment path
reads the deployment cap directly, so `PAPERCLIP_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES`
is the single limit. An upload rejected by that limit says so in human
units — "File is larger than the 10 MB limit" rather than a raw byte
count. The `companies.brand_color` and `companies.attachment_max_bytes`
columns are dropped, and both fields leave the company API contract.
**Reason and benefit**
Both settings ask an operator to make a decision that changes almost
nothing. The brand color moves one icon hue on a page that also lets you
upload a real logo, which overrides the icon entirely. The attachment
limit reads as a real control but cannot raise anything, so it is a
second place to look when an upload is rejected. Removing both shortens
the page every deployment sees, removes a company-scoped read from the
task attachment upload path, and leaves one attachment limit to reason
about instead of two.
**Breaking changes**
The company API responses no longer include `brandColor` or
`attachmentMaxBytes`, and `GET /api/invites/{token}` no longer includes
`companyBrandColor`. `PATCH /api/companies/{companyId}/branding` is
strict, so a request that sends `brandColor` now returns 400; the
non-strict `PATCH /api/companies/{companyId}` schema strips it. Company
packages exported by older versions still import: the portability
company manifest schema is non-strict, so the retired keys are stripped
and ignored rather than rejected. Companies that stored a brand color
lose it — their icon reverts to the name-derived hue that every company
without a color already used.
## What Changed
- Removed the "Brand color" and "Attachment size limit" fields from the
company General page, along with their state, dirty checks, save
payload, and Save-button gating.
- Removed `brandColor` and `attachmentMaxBytes` from
`createCompanySchema`, `updateCompanySchema`, and
`updateCompanyBrandingSchema`, and deleted the now-orphaned
`DEFAULT_COMPANY_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES` and
`MAX_COMPANY_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES` constants.
- Removed both fields from the `Company` type, the portability manifest
type and schema, and the `companiesApi.update` payload allowlist.
- Dropped `brandColor` from `CompanyPatternIcon` and its callers, so the
icon hue always comes from the company name. Deleted the now-unused
`hexToHue` helper and the now-unused `pickTextColorForSolidBg` export.
- Stopped emitting `brandColor` from the company service selection and
from the invite-summary and invite-branding payloads in
`server/src/routes/access.ts`.
- Replaced `normalizeIssueAttachmentMaxBytes` with the deployment cap:
task attachments, case attachments, and company import now use
`MAX_ATTACHMENT_BYTES` directly. The helper is deleted.
- Added `formatAttachmentSize()` next to `MAX_ATTACHMENT_BYTES` and
routed every over-limit message through it, so a rejected upload names
the limit in human units instead of raw bytes: `Image exceeds 10485760
bytes` becomes `Image is larger than the 10 MB limit`. Enforcement is
unchanged — the same single cap, the same multer limits, the same status
codes and response shapes.
- Added migration
`0229_drop_company_brand_color_and_attachment_max_bytes.sql` and removed
both columns from the Drizzle `companies` schema.
- Kept legacy imports working: the portability company manifest schema
is non-strict, so older packages carrying the retired keys still import
with the keys ignored.
- Updated the skill API reference and the implementation spec, and
pruned the token-extraction allowlist entries that the removed code made
stale.
## Verification
Commands run from the repository root:
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — pass
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — pass (includes
`check:migrations`, which validates the new migration number and journal
entry)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — pass
- server typecheck via `node_modules/.bin/tsc --noEmit` in `server/` —
pass. `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` could not run
locally because it builds the Rust runner first and `cargo` is not
installed on this machine; the TypeScript step it wraps is the command
above.
- `npx vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/company.test.ts` — 6
passed
- `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` — 90
passed
- `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/attachment-types.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/assets.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts` — 165 passed (the
human-readable limit messages)
- `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-branding-route.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/invite-summary-route.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/openclaw-invite-prompt-route.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/companies-route-cross-company-authz.test.ts` — all
passed
- `npx vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company-delete.test.ts` — 27 passed
- `npx vitest run` in `ui/` — 4425 passed, 1 pre-existing failure
unrelated to this change (`OnboardingWizard.test.tsx` "renders instead
of throwing when the browser denies storage access", which also fails on
`master`)
- `npx vitest run` in `server/` — see the note below
- `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` — no new violations; the only
reported violations are the pre-existing `PillGuy.tsx` ones present on
`master`
New tests added:
- `packages/shared/src/validators/company.test.ts` — the create and
update schemas strip the retired keys, the strict branding schema
rejects `brandColor`, and the portability manifest schema accepts a
legacy entry carrying both keys and drops them.
- `server/src/__tests__/company-branding-route.test.ts` — `PATCH
/api/companies/{companyId}/branding` returns 400 for `brandColor` and
does not call the company service.
- `server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` — a legacy package
that declares `brandColor` and `attachmentMaxBytes` imports
successfully, and neither key reaches `companies.create`.
- `server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts` — the effective
task attachment limit is the deployment cap, and the route no longer
loads the company to size an upload.
- `server/src/__tests__/attachment-types.test.ts` —
`formatAttachmentSize()` renders the default cap as `10 MB`, keeps one
decimal place for fractional sizes and drops a trailing `.0`, falls back
to KB and bytes for small caps, steps up to GB, and never emits `NaN`
for a degenerate input.
- `server/src/__tests__/assets.test.ts` — the asset-image and
company-logo routes both return the human-readable limit message on an
over-cap upload.
## Merge with master
`master` moved while this was open, and the merge needed two
resolutions:
- **`ui/src/pages/CompanySettings.tsx`.** #12243 reworded the
user-facing
copy from "company" to "organization", and that rewording landed inside
the "Brand color" and "Attachment size limit" hints — the two fields
this change deletes. Both fields are removed, so the conflicted block is
dropped whole. The Logo field and every other copy change from #12243
are
kept.
- **Migration renumbered 0228 -> 0229.** #12307 landed
`0228_nasty_grim_reaper`, so this migration is now
`0229_drop_company_brand_color_and_attachment_max_bytes`. Its snapshot
is
rebuilt from master's `0228_snapshot.json` with only the two `companies`
columns removed, and `meta/_journal.json` is master's journal plus a
single `idx: 229` entry. `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db
check:migrations`
passes.
The snapshot was rebuilt by hand rather than taken from `drizzle-kit
generate`, because master's `0228_snapshot.json` has drifted from
master's
own schema: `issue_question_response_deliveries.error_count` is created
by
master's 0228 SQL but missing from its snapshot, and the snapshot still
carries `decision_archive_notification_outbox.error_count`. Regenerating
folds both into this migration, and the resulting `ADD COLUMN
error_count`
would fail on a fresh database where master's 0228 already created that
column. Rebuilding from master's snapshot leaves that drift exactly
where
it is and keeps this migration to the two column drops. The drift is
pre-existing on master and is not addressed here.
## Risks
- **The migration is a destructive column drop.**
`0229_drop_company_brand_color_and_attachment_max_bytes.sql` removes
`companies.brand_color` and `companies.attachment_max_bytes`. It is safe
because both features are removed in the same change and nothing reads
either column after it. The statements use `DROP COLUMN IF EXISTS`,
matching the convention of the recent drop migrations in this
repository. The drop is not reversible: a downgrade after this migration
loses any stored values.
- **Stored brand colors are lost.** A company that had set a color now
renders the name-derived icon hue that every company without a color
already used. No other surface changes, and an uploaded logo still
overrides the icon.
- **API response shape narrows.** `brandColor` and `attachmentMaxBytes`
leave the company payloads, and `companyBrandColor` leaves the invite
summary payload. A client reading those fields now sees `undefined`. The
bundled UI and CLI are updated in this change.
- **Legacy imports are covered.** Packages exported by older versions
still carry both keys. The manifest schema is non-strict, so the keys
are stripped rather than rejected, and a test locks that in.
- **The over-limit message strings changed.** Anything matching on the
old `... exceeds N bytes` text — a test, a script, or a client that
string-matches `body.error` — needs updating. The status codes (422) and
response shapes are unchanged, so structured clients are unaffected.
- **Attachment limits can only widen.** A deployment that had lowered a
company below the deployment cap now allows uploads up to the cap for
that company. Lower `PAPERCLIP_ATTACHMENT_MAX_BYTES` if a smaller
ceiling is needed.
- **Storybook visual baselines shift** for the `CompanyPatternIcon`
matrix story, because those fixtures had brand colors. That workflow
runs only on a PR labeled `storybook-visual`, so it does not gate this
PR; regenerate the baselines if the label is added.
## Model Used
Claude (Anthropic), Claude Opus, agentic tool use via Claude Code.
## 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agents move issues to `in_review` and rely on a "review path" (an
interaction, an approval, a monitor, or a named reviewer) to tell them
who decides next.
> - That review path can silently disappear. A user comment supersedes
the pending interaction, a monitor is exhausted, or a run ends without
restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with nobody
reviewing it and no visible action.
> - Such issues become invisible zombies. Nobody knows a decision is
owed, so the work stalls forever.
> - This pull request makes the review path a maintained invariant,
exposes a `reviewAttention` surface, and gives every stalled review
three inline actions in the UI.
> - The benefit is that an `in_review` issue always shows who reviews
it, or shows an amber "nobody is reviewing this" notice with one-click
Approve, Request changes, and Send back to work.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This pull request describes the problem inline. The tracking issue is
internal.
**Subsystem affected**
The review and attention loop that agents and humans share: the
`in_review` status, the `reviewAttention` surface, the /decisions
attention feed, and the issue-page review panel.
**Problem or motivation**
Agent-owned issues in `in_review` can lose their last review path. A
user comment supersedes the pending interaction. A monitor is exhausted.
A run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review`
with no reviewer and no visible action. It becomes an invisible zombie
and the work never progresses.
**Proposed solution**
Maintain the review path as a server invariant. Expose a
`reviewAttention` field that says what is under review, who decides, and
since when. Render a persistent review panel on the issue page and
inline actions on the /decisions feed. Keep human PATCHes into
`in_review` ungated, but record the requesting user so the panel never
renders empty.
**Alternatives considered**
A pure background auto-recovery sweep. This stays opt-in and is not
enough on its own, because it is invisible to the human. A bare status
banner. This is rejected, because it gives no action to resolve the
stall.
**Roadmap alignment**
This improves the core review and attention loop that both agents and
humans use every day.
## What Changed
- **Server — maintained review-path invariant:** when an issue enters or
sits in `in_review`, the server derives and persists a review path
(interaction, approval, monitor, or the requesting user) and recovers a
stale path with one bounded wake instead of leaving the issue pathless.
- **Server — `reviewAttention` surface:** a new field describes what is
under review (bound target with links), who decides, since when, and
whether the review is stalled. Stalled agent-assigned reviews are now
included in the attention feed.
- **Server — inline stalled-review decisions:** secured routes let a
permitted responder Approve (→ `done`), Request changes (→ `todo` + wake
carrying the note), or Send back to work (→ `todo` + wake) directly from
the attention feed.
- **Server — resume-intent wake:** an `in_review -> todo` transition now
wakes the assigned agent so a resumed review is not dropped.
- **Server — user-entry symmetry:** user PATCHes into `in_review` stay
ungated (no 422 for humans) and record the requesting user, who becomes
the named responder when no other path exists.
- **UI — review panel:** a persistent `IssueReviewPanel` renders above
the thread whenever status is `in_review`. The covered state shows the
bound target, responder, and outcomes and hoists the pending
interaction/approval card. The stalled state shows the amber notice plus
the three actions.
- **UI — decisions card actions:** the same three actions render inline
on the /decisions `AttentionQueueRow`.
- **UI — responsive fix:** the stalled action row stacks to full-width
buttons at phone width and returns to a horizontal row at `sm` and up.
New 390px stories capture the phone layout.
## Verification
- `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueReviewPanel.test.tsx
src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx src/lib/attention.test.ts
src/api/issues.test.ts` — 91 tests pass.
- Server suites added and updated: `issue-review-attention`,
`issue-stalled-review-decision-routes`, `review-path-recovery`,
`recovery-observability`, and related route/liveness tests (run by CI).
- A designer reviewed the UI at 390px and desktop in light and dark
themes on both the issue-page panel and the /decisions card. The stalled
action row stacks cleanly at phone width with no overlap and keeps the
horizontal row on desktop.
## Risks
- **Migration:** adds migration `0200` (next after master `0199`, no
renumber). It extends the agent-wakeup-requests schema and is additive.
- **Behavioral shift:** `in_review -> todo` now dispatches a wake. This
is intended (resume intent) and covered by tests.
- **Authz:** the inline decision routes are permission-gated. Only a
permitted responder sees and can trigger the actions.
- Overall risk is moderate and contained to the review and attention
loop.
## Model Used
- Claude, Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, 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
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] 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 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - In a multi-tenant deployment, route handlers that take a resource id
(`issue`, `goal`, `project`, `approval`, etc.) look the resource up by
id and then call `assertCompanyAccess` on its `companyId` — 404 if it
doesn't exist, 403 if it exists in another tenant
> - The split status codes are a classic *existence oracle*: any
authenticated user can enumerate ids across tenants by probing for the
403/404 boundary, mapping out which issues, labels, approvals, etc.
exist in other customers' tenants even when they cannot read the
contents
> - The right fix is a single uniform 404 for both "not found" and
"found but cross-tenant", which collapses the oracle but still preserves
write-path checks (active membership, viewer-readonly) for *authorized*
tenants
> - This pull request adds a non-throwing `hasCompanyAccess(req,
companyId)` helper plus a `getAccessibleResource` wrapper that ~130
handlers across 14 route files now use, folding the access check into
the existence check while still running `assertCompanyAccess` for
authorized tenants so viewer-readonly / inactive-membership rejections
fire unchanged on write paths
> - The benefit is closing a multi-tenant information leak without
breaking write-path security or single-tenant local-first behavior
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #709 — asks for company-scope regression coverage across
approval/activity/access routes, because a subtle route refactor could
leak cross-tenant data; this PR hardens exactly those surfaces (uniform
404 across 14 route files including `approvals`, `activity`, `secrets`)
and updates cross-tenant expectations in test files. It does not add the
full coverage matrix #709 asks for — hence Refs, not Closes.
No existing issue covers the oracle itself — described in-PR:
- Route handlers returned 404 for "not found" but 403 for "exists in
another tenant", a classic *existence oracle*: any authenticated user
could enumerate ids across tenants by probing the 403/404 boundary.
- That maps out which issues, labels, approvals, etc. exist in other
customers' tenants even when their contents are unreadable.
- Fix: a uniform 404 for both cases, while keeping write-path checks
(active membership, viewer-readonly) for authorized tenants.
## What Changed
- **`server/src/routes/authz.ts`** — new `hasCompanyAccess(req,
companyId): boolean` helper alongside the existing
`assertCompanyAccess`. Docstring spells out the two-step pattern (404
gate, then `assertCompanyAccess` for write-path checks). The helper
mirrors `assertCompanyAccess`'s company-scope semantics exactly — in
particular, signed-in instance admins do **not** get blanket access to
companies they are not a member of (the repo's `authz-company-access`
tests pin that behavior for `assertCompanyAccess`; an earlier draft of
the helper accidentally widened it for reads).
- **`getAccessibleResource(req, res, lookup, notFoundMessage)`** — the
safe thing is now the easy thing. One helper wraps the whole pattern
(uniform 404 for missing/cross-tenant, then `assertCompanyAccess` for
write-path membership checks) and ~130 handlers across 14 route files
use it:
```ts
const goal = await getAccessibleResource(req, res, svc.getById(id),
"Goal not found");
if (!goal) return;
```
Files: `activity`, `agents`, `approvals`, `assets`, `costs`,
`environments`, `execution-workspaces`, `file-resources`, `goals`,
`issue-tree-control`, `issues`, `projects`, `routines`, `secrets`.
Handlers with bespoke not-found behavior (the legacy `200 []` contract,
audit-logged denials in `file-resources`, null-returning authz helpers)
compose `hasCompanyAccess` directly using the documented two-step
pattern:
```ts
// step 1: close the oracle (uniform 404 for both not-found and
cross-tenant)
if (!existing || !hasCompanyAccess(req, existing.companyId)) {
res.status(404).json({ error: "Goal not found" });
return;
}
// step 2: enforce write-path membership checks for authorised tenants
(no-op on GET)
assertCompanyAccess(req, existing.companyId);
```
Routes where `companyId` comes from *request input*
(`req.params.companyId`, `req.body.companyId`, e.g. in `companies.ts`
and `plugins.ts`) deliberately retain plain `assertCompanyAccess` —
there's no existence oracle to close because the companyId is an input,
not a discovered value.
- **Full-sweep coverage** — a scripted audit of every
`assertCompanyAccess(req, <resource>.companyId)` call site in
`server/src/routes/` found ~55 lookup-then-assert pairs the first pass
missed; all are now gated. Notable ones: the
`/secret-provider-configs/:id` CRUD routes, the agents
instructions-bundle/config-revision/skills-sync routes (which check
access via the `assertCanUpdateAgent` / `assertCanReadAgent` /
`assertCanManageInstructionsPath` helpers), `POST
/heartbeat-runs/:runId/watchdog-decisions`, `GET
/issues/:id/cost-summary`, the environment + environment-lease GET
routes, all six issue-tree-control routes, ~24 issue sub-resource routes
(document annotations, interactions, approvals links, recovery actions,
plan decompositions, lock/unlock), and the three workspace file-resource
routes (these throw `notFound` instead of `forbidden` inside their
audit-logging wrappers, so denied attempts are still activity-logged
server-side while the client sees a uniform 404).
- **Helpers made self-defending** — `assertCanUpdateAgent` /
`assertCanReadAgent` / `assertCanManageInstructionsPath` (agents) and
`assertCanManage{Project,Execution}WorkspaceRuntimeServices` throw
`notFound` for cross-tenant resources before their `assertCompanyAccess`
step, so a future caller that forgets the route-level gate still can't
reopen the oracle.
- **Pattern enforcement** — new `authz-existence-oracle-guard.test.ts`
statically scans `server/src/routes/*.ts` and fails CI on any
`assertCompanyAccess(req, <resource>.companyId)` call that is not
preceded by a `hasCompanyAccess` gate, with an explicit allowlist (plus
staleness check) for the request-input cases. New routes that regress to
the 403/404 split fail the suite with a message pointing at the
documented pattern.
- **Tests** — cross-tenant expectations updated from 403→404 where
routes are now gated; new `hasCompanyAccess` unit tests in
`authz-company-access.test.ts` pin the
instance-admin/local-implicit/agent/none semantics in lockstep with
`assertCompanyAccess`; `write-path-membership.test.ts` (added in an
earlier round) confirms viewer/inactive users are still rejected on
writes.
- **One legacy-contract preserve** — `GET /heartbeat-runs/:runId/issues`
still returns `200 []` for both "doesn't exist" and "cross-tenant" so
the legacy contract is preserved while the oracle stays closed.
## Verification
- `pnpm run typecheck` — PASS.
- `pnpm -F @paperclipai/server exec vitest run` — full server suite
green locally apart from 4 pre-existing local-environment failures
(`paperclip-skill-utils` ×2 and `workspace-runtime` ×1 are
cwd/git-environment dependent — verified identical on a clean checkout
of the base; `heartbeat-process-recovery` is the known macOS flake).
- The new `authz-existence-oracle-guard` test sweeps
`server/src/routes/*.ts` and confirms no remaining
`assertCompanyAccess(resource.companyId)` site without a
`hasCompanyAccess` gate; the only allowlisted holdouts take `companyId`
from request input.
## Risks
- **API contract narrowing.** Any client that specifically checked for
`403` on cross-tenant access now sees `404`. This is a strict narrowing
(one status instead of two for the same negative outcome) and matches
what a client should expect for any id it can't access.
- **Write-path checks preserved.** `assertCompanyAccess` still runs
after the 404 gate on write routes, so viewer-readonly /
inactive-membership rejections fire unchanged for legitimate users.
- **Instance-admin scope unchanged.** `hasCompanyAccess` denies
signed-in instance admins without an explicit membership, exactly like
`assertCompanyAccess` (pinned by unit tests) — so the gate introduces no
new read access for admins.
- **Single-tenant local-first deploys** behave identically — the helper
short-circuits to `true` for `local_implicit` sessions.
- No new env vars, no deployment-mode switch.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context), extended thinking mode; completeness sweep
+ instance-admin parity fix by Claude Fable 5 (1M context).
## Checklist
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] Thinking path traces from project context to this change
- [x] Model used specified
- [x] Checked ROADMAP.md — part of the multi-tenant hardening initiative
- [x] Tests run locally and pass
- [x] Added/updated cross-tenant 404 expectations across test files
- [x] No UI changes
- [x] Documented risks above
- [x] Will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge
Part of the multi-tenant hardening initiative — see also #5864
(per-company JWT keys) and #5865 (plugin tables `company_id`).
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Skills Manager gives operators a reusable skill layer, but
iteration still required manual edits, ad hoc prompts, and indirect run
inspection.
> - Skill authors need a focused workflow for editing skill files,
saving representative test inputs, and running those inputs through an
agent without exposing harness tasks as normal company work.
> - The backend therefore needs durable test inputs, reusable run
templates, hidden harness issues, scoped run execution, retention
metadata, and read-containment rules around hidden work.
> - The frontend needs a three-pane Studio that keeps skill files, saved
inputs/templates, and run output/history visible together while
preserving the existing design system and token rules.
> - This pull request ships that Skill Studio surface end to end:
database migrations, shared contracts, server APIs/services, hidden
harness execution behavior, UI routes/components, and focused tests.
> - The benefit is faster and safer skill iteration, with inspectable
outputs and fewer ways for internal harness work to leak into normal
task lists, costs, or adjacent read APIs.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. Feature request summary:
- Problem: Skill authors need to edit and test company skills in one
place instead of switching between the skill detail page, task creation,
run output, and manual prompt history.
- Proposed solution: Add a Skill Studio workbench with saved inputs,
reusable templates, hidden sandboxed test runs, live run status, output
inspection, run history, rerun/delete controls, and frontmatter-aware
editing.
- Expected users: Paperclip operators and agent-company maintainers who
create, fork, import, and tune skills.
- Related public PRs: Supersedes #9205, which was replaced so the public
PR branch name follows contributor policy.
- Duplicate search: searched public GitHub issues and PRs for "Skill
Studio"; no other active public issue or PR directly covers this
feature.
## What Changed
- Added database migrations for Skill Studio test inputs, test runs,
test run retention, and reusable run templates.
- Added shared Skill Studio types, validators, route helpers,
frontmatter utilities, and status handling.
- Added server services and routes for saved inputs, test runs,
templates, reruns, terminal-run deletion, hidden harness issue
execution, and run-detail hydration.
- Strengthened hidden-issue read containment across issue-adjacent
routes and cost rollups used by skill test harness work.
- Added the Skill Studio UI with skill file editing, frontmatter
editing, saved inputs, templates, run creation/cancel/rerun/delete
flows, output rendering, history, route support, and responsive pane
behavior.
- Added focused backend, shared, and UI tests for the new APIs, routing
logic, editor/run behavior, hidden-issue containment, and migration
safety.
- Rebased onto current `master`, removed the generated lockfile diff
from the PR, and verified no workflow files are changed.
## Verification
- [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- [x] `pnpm check:token-gates`
- [x] `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skill-test-runs-service.test.ts
ui/src/lib/skill-studio.test.ts ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx` — 5
files, 132 tests passed
- [x] Greptile review on the latest PR head
- [x] GitHub PR checks on the latest PR head
## Risks
- Medium risk because this is a broad feature touching database schema,
server orchestration, issue visibility, and a large UI surface.
- Hidden harness issue containment is security-sensitive; this PR
includes regression coverage for adjacent read paths and cost rollups.
- The new migrations are additive and use idempotent guards where
applicable, but deployed databases that previously tested draft
migration numbers should still be checked carefully.
- The UI depends on a new resizable panels package in `ui/package.json`;
the lockfile is intentionally left to repository automation.
> 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, GPT-5 coding agent with shell, git, and GitHub CLI tool
use. Earlier feature commits include assistance from other Paperclip
coding agents; this PR preparation, rebase, cleanup commit, and PR body
were completed by OpenAI Codex in a Paperclip worktree.
## 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>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - This change touches several already-shipped subsystems —
document-comment annotations, the selected-agent Conference Room chat
surface, routine description annotations, workspace-operation tracking,
and the board polling/inbox UI
> - A batch of incremental fixes and two small backend additions had
accumulated on a local mainline and were deployed to a live instance,
but never landed upstream — so each `origin/master` sync kept
re-diverging
> - Leaving them un-upstreamed means the same delta has to be re-merged
on every sync and risks being lost or silently reverted
> - This pull request rebases that delta cleanly on top of current
`origin/master` (preserving recent upstream work such as reusable
sandbox leases and the relation-list collapse controls) and brings it up
for review
> - The benefit is that mainline and the deployed instance converge, and
these fixes/additions get normal review + CI + Greptile coverage
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No single GitHub issue tracks this; it is a bundle of bug fixes and two
small feature additions. Following the issue-template fields:
**Bug fixes (what was wrong → what this does):**
- Document comments rendered out of document order, didn't live-update
across clients, swallowed save failures, and lost the markdown text
selection on re-render. Now: doc-order sort, live updates, surfaced
save-failure state, stable selection across re-renders.
- The board polling hot path returned oversized payloads on every poll.
Now: an opt-in `summary` projection trims the heartbeat-run list
payload.
- Assorted UI fixes: sidebar nav peek/streamlining edge cases, markdown
file-viewer re-mount/line-height issues on iOS Safari, inbox badge/skill
deep-link tab selection, and `⌘.` work-mode cycling on iOS.
**Feature additions:**
- `workspace_operations.issue_id` — associate a workspace operation with
the issue that triggered it (new migration `0106`, schema, service,
shared type).
- Routine **description annotations** — comment threads on a routine's
description document, mirroring issue document annotations (new
migration `0107`, `routine_documents` schema, routes/service,
editable-sections UI).
- Selected-agent **Conference Room chat** surface wiring and live
issue-thread updates.
**Related PR:** #8229 (`feat(control-plane): add annotation and
workspace controls`, draft) covers overlapping
annotation/workspace-control territory — flagging it so a reviewer can
reconcile the two rather than double-merging.
## What Changed
- `feat(workspace)`: `workspace_operations.issue_id` migration +
schema/service/type; issue workspace property controls reconciled with
upstream's evolved "Service" row.
- `feat(routines)`: routine description annotations —
`routine_documents` schema, migration `0107`, routes/service,
`editable-sections` UI.
- `fix(document-comments)`: doc-order sort, live updates, save-failure
surfacing, stable markdown selection (+ storybook story, rerender test).
- `feat(chat)`: selected-agent Conference Room chat surface and live
issue-thread updates (`LiveUpdatesProvider`, `issue-chat-messages`,
interactions service).
- `perf(board)`: opt-in `summary` projection for the board
polling/heartbeat-run list payload, plus assorted sidebar / file-viewer
/ inbox / IssueProperties UI fixes.
Organized into 5 logical commits. Migrations are numbered incrementally
after upstream's latest (`0105`) — `0106` then `0107`, no journal
collision.
## Verification
- Built by 3-way merging the deployed delta onto current
`origin/master`; the only merge conflict (`IssueProperties.test.tsx`,
two adjacent test blocks) was resolved in favor of upstream's evolved
"green service link above the workspace row" layout, which matches the
merged component's rendered output.
- Confirmed recent upstream work is preserved post-merge: reusable
sandbox lease teardown (`#8513`), the IssueProperties relation-list
collapse controls, and the sidebar streamlined-nav default.
- Confirmed the net diff vs `origin/master` is exactly the intended
feature delta (65 files) and that overlapping server files (`issues.ts`,
`agents.ts`, `heartbeat.ts`) only add feature code without disturbing
upstream logic.
- This delta is already running on a live deployed instance.
- Full typecheck/test suite + Greptile to run in CI (see checklist).
## Risks
- Two new migrations (`0106`, `0107`). Both are additive (new table /
new nullable column) and ordered after upstream's `0105`; no data
backfill, low risk. If another migration-bearing PR merges first,
renumber before merge.
- Largest blast radius is in the merged overlapping UI/service files;
covered by the existing test suites for those files plus CI.
- Overlaps thematically with draft PR #8229 — reviewers should reconcile
rather than merge both blindly.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, with tool use
(git, shell). Agentic coding workflow.
## 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)
- [ ] 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
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] 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 execution control plane uses issue comments, assignments,
monitors, blockers, and interactions to decide when agent-owned work
should wake and run.
> - Top-level issue comments are actionable issue-thread feedback for
the assignee, but document-scoped comments are review context unless
they are converted into an explicit routing primitive.
> - Document annotation comments were still wired into the same
`issue_commented` wake path as top-level issue comments.
> - That made document activity capable of waking an assignee and
looking like an execution path even when no issue-level handoff
happened.
> - This pull request narrows the wake boundary so document annotation
activity stays document-scoped while normal issue comments continue
waking the assignee.
> - The benefit is fewer spurious wakeups and clearer non-terminal issue
liveness semantics.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Internal Paperclip work: [PAP-10613](/PAP/issues/PAP-10613),
[PAP-10640](/PAP/issues/PAP-10640)
Problem description:
- Document annotation thread creation and annotation comments were
treated as assignee wake sources.
- Document-scoped activity should remain visible as document/review
context, but should not by itself act as a queued issue wake, monitor,
approval, interaction response, blocker, or terminal disposition.
- Top-level issue comments should still wake the assignee on
agent-assigned, non-terminal issues.
Related PR search performed:
- Found related prior document annotation work: #6733.
- Found related prior issue-comment wake work and revert context: #7678,
#7765.
- No existing PR for `PAP-10613-why-is-this-task-not-running`.
## What Changed
- Removed the document annotation comment assignee wake helper from
issue routes.
- Kept document annotation reference sync and activity logging intact.
- Documented the distinction between top-level issue comments and
document-scoped comments in `doc/execution-semantics.md`.
- Added route tests proving document/document annotation activity does
not wake the assignee.
- Added route coverage proving top-level board issue comments still wake
the assignee.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes.test.ts` — 2
files passed, 9 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git status -sb` — clean branch tracking
`origin/PAP-10613-why-is-this-task-not-running`.
## Risks
- Low to moderate behavior change: document annotation comments no
longer wake the issue assignee automatically.
- Operators who want document feedback to route work must use an
explicit primitive such as assignment, issue-thread comment, agent
mention, issue-thread interaction, approval, blocker, or delegated
follow-up.
- No database migration or public API shape change.
> 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, GPT-5-based coding agent with shell/tool use enabled.
Exact hosted runtime model identifier beyond GPT-5 was not exposed in
this session.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [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.
> - Issue comment wake handoffs are part of the control-plane execution
loop that decides when agents resume work after comments and issue
updates.
> - PR #7678 changed that wake handoff behavior in server issue routes,
heartbeat context, and related tests.
> - The change broke an important workflow after merge, so the safest
immediate fix is to restore the pre-#7678 wake behavior.
> - This pull request reverts the wake-handoff behavior from PR #7678
while keeping narrow review-requested safeguards that prevent known
runtime/test regressions.
> - The benefit is that Paperclip returns to the last known working wake
behavior without reintroducing avoidable UUID skill lookup and
annotation-resolution test gaps.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: #7678
Bug context:
- What happened: PR #7678 was reported to have broken an important
Paperclip workflow after it merged.
- Expected behavior: Paperclip should preserve the prior issue comment
wake handoff behavior until a corrected change is ready.
- Steps to reproduce: Use the workflow affected by PR #7678's issue
comment wake handoff changes.
- Paperclip version/commit: `master` after merge commit
`4da79a88c67e54084d40bd18cada5ee5c8be23da`.
- Deployment mode: Paperclip control-plane server behavior.
## What Changed
- Reverted merge commit `4da79a88c67e54084d40bd18cada5ee5c8be23da` from
PR #7678 to restore pre-#7678 wake-handoff behavior.
- Preserved the safe accepted-plan routing check so `parseObject(...)`
is not used as a boolean.
- Preserved UUID filtering for run-scoped skill mentions so legacy
non-UUID skill IDs do not reach a Postgres UUID lookup.
- Restored the annotation thread-resolution test guard that verifies
resolving a thread does not wake the assignee.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && NODE_ENV=test
PAPERCLIP_HOME=/tmp/... PAPERCLIP_INSTANCE_ID=pap10614-revert
TMPDIR=/tmp/... pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
--no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1
server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-project-env.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts`
- Result: 4 test files passed, 26 tests passed.
- Earlier targeted revert verification also passed: 4 test files, 50
tests.
## Risks
- This intentionally restores behavior from before PR #7678, so intended
wake-handoff improvements from that PR are removed.
- The PR is no longer a byte-for-byte revert because Greptile identified
two narrow safeguards worth preserving.
- Low migration risk: no schema or dependency changes are included.
- Follow-up work may still be needed to reintroduce the desired wake
handoff behavior without the regression.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in this Paperclip heartbeat, with
shell/tool execution and repository write access.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The heartbeat and issue-comment routes decide when an assigned agent
wakes up and what context it receives.
> - Passive comments and annotation notes can currently wake assignees
even when no actionable state changed.
> - Accepted planning confirmations also need to preserve recent plan
comments so child-issue creation does not lose board/user constraints.
> - Runtime skill mentions should only send UUID ids into database
lookups, because legacy slug-like ids are not valid runtime skill ids.
> - This pull request tightens those wake and handoff rules in one
server-side branch.
> - The benefit is fewer noisy agent wakeups and better accepted-plan
continuation context without changing the task model.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Internal Paperclip task: [PAP-10535](/PAP/issues/PAP-10535).
Problem or motivation:
Passive comments and annotation notes could wake the current assignee
even when no actionable state changed, and accepted plan continuations
needed recent plan comments preserved in the wake handoff. Runtime skill
mentions also needed to ignore non-UUID ids before database lookup.
Proposed solution:
Tighten server-side wake routing so passive comments do not wake
assignees unless they reopen the issue, preserve mention-targeted
wakeups, include recent non-deleted plan comments in accepted
confirmation wake payloads, and guard runtime skill mention lookup to
UUID-like ids.
Alternatives considered:
Leaving passive assignee wakeups in place was rejected because it keeps
generating noisy non-actionable heartbeats. Treating every skill
mention-like token as a runtime skill id was rejected because legacy
slug-like ids are not valid runtime skill ids.
Roadmap alignment:
This aligns with the V1 control-plane heartbeat contract by making
wakeups more intentional and preserving handoff context for approved
plans.
This PR was split from the local `master` branch on June 7, 2026. It
covers server-side heartbeat and comment-wakeup behavior only. I
searched GitHub for duplicate/related PRs; the results were broader
heartbeat/run PRs, not this exact passive-comment and accepted-plan
handoff change.
## What Changed
- Filter runtime skill mention extraction so only UUID-like skill ids
are looked up.
- Stop ordinary issue comments and document annotation comments from
waking the current assignee unless the comment reopens the issue.
- Keep mention-targeted wakeups intact while removing passive assignee
wakeups.
- Include recent non-deleted issue comments in accepted-plan
confirmation wake payloads and task markdown.
- Updated focused server tests for the new wakeup and accepted-plan
behavior.
## Verification
- `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-project-env.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-redaction.test.ts`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-redaction.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter /server typecheck`
- PR checks green on head `a379a0264d384510ff8ac4a47fb1e44d7b556f68`
- Greptile rerun green on head
`a379a0264d384510ff8ac4a47fb1e44d7b556f68`: 9 files reviewed, 0 comments
added, 0 unresolved review threads
## Risks
- Medium behavioral risk: agents will no longer wake for passive
comments unless mentioned or unless the comment reopens/resumes the
issue. That is intentional, but any workflow relying on passive assignee
comment wakeups should use explicit mentions or structured resume paths.
- Low migration risk: no schema or migration changes.
> 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell, git, GitHub CLI,
and local test execution. Exact hosted model variant and context-window
size were not exposed by the runtime.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [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 a control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution
policy and trust boundaries are part of the product's safety contract.
> - Low-trust review work needs narrower authority than normal
same-company agents because hostile PRs, comments, attachments, and
generated output can carry prompt-injection payloads.
> - The current V1 shape gives trusted workers broad company context,
which is useful for normal execution but too permissive for a reviewer
assigned to hostile content.
> - This branch adds a `low_trust_review` preset, source-trust tagging,
route-level containment, and quarantine handling so low-trust output
does not automatically flow into higher-trust wake context.
> - The branch has been rebased onto current `origin/master`, and the
low-trust migration was renumbered to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`
to avoid collisions with existing `0091` through `0096` migrations.
> - Greptile feedback was addressed by tightening low-trust detection,
preserving project-level trust policy checks, fixing issue-kind
promotion lookup, removing duplicate post-lease isolation assertion,
documenting fail-closed source-trust behavior, bounding ancestry checks,
enforcing runtime issue context for CEOs, awaiting accepted-plan monitor
authorization, and making low-trust issue source-trust tagging atomic.
> - The benefit is a first production slice of deny-by-default review
containment with regression coverage for the main control-plane pivot
surfaces.
Fixes#7531.
## What Changed
- Added shared trust-policy types and validators, plus
database/source-trust fields for issues, comments, documents, and work
products.
- Implemented server enforcement for low-trust issue scope, agent
self-view redaction, secret/plugin/runtime denial paths, promotion
checks, and quarantined continuation/wake context.
- Added focused low-trust regression tests for resolver behavior, source
trust, route authorization, heartbeat preflight ordering, runtime
containment, and quarantine redaction.
- Added board UI affordances for selecting/reviewing the low-trust
preset and surfacing source-trust badges in relevant issue views.
- Added `doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md`, updated
`doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and committed the low-trust review
contract plan under `doc/plans/`.
- Rebasing note: the original `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`
migration was renamed to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses
`ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied the old-numbered
migration are not broken by the renumbered migration.
## Verification
- Rebased branch onto current `origin/master` and force-pushed with
lease to `origin/PAP-10211-low-trust-agent` at head `2719f31e3`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
- Resolved upstream UI/comment conflicts by preserving deleted-comment
tombstone behavior and low-trust source-trust badges/metadata.
- Renumbered the low-trust source-trust migration to
`0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT
EXISTS` so users who already applied an old-numbered copy are not
broken.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/source-trust.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts
ui/src/lib/trust-policy-ui.test.ts
ui/src/components/TrustPresetSection.test.tsx`
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`
- `git diff --check`
- GitHub checks pass on head `2719f31e3`: build, typecheck/release
registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary, verify,
policy/review, Socket, and Snyk.
- Greptile Review passes with Confidence Score 5/5 and zero unresolved
Greptile review threads.
- No design screenshots/images were added because the task explicitly
says not to add them unless they are specifically part of the work.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches shared trust-policy contracts, server
authorization paths, heartbeat context generation, migration metadata,
and UI preset controls.
- Low-trust containment is intentionally deny-by-default; legitimate
future review workflows may need explicit allowlisted exceptions.
- Plugin/runtime/security surfaces are broad, so regression tests cover
the current known routes but future integrations must route through the
same containment layer.
- The PR is ready for review; GitHub checks are green and Greptile is
5/5.
> 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, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell and GitHub CLI
workflow.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] UI changes are covered by focused tests; no screenshots were added
per task instruction not to add design images unless specifically
required
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through issues, documents,
runs, and durable company-scoped state.
> - Issue documents are where agents and operators capture plans,
handoffs, and work products.
> - Before this change, document collaboration could only happen through
whole-document edits and detached issue comments.
> - Inline document annotations need stable anchors, revision-aware
persistence, and UI affordances that do not break existing document
editing.
> - This pull request adds company-scoped document annotation threads,
comments, anchor snapshots, API routes, and board UI.
> - The benefit is that operators and agents can discuss specific
document passages without losing context as documents evolve.
## What Changed
- Added document annotation tables, schema exports, shared types,
validators, anchor hashing, and text-anchor helpers.
- Added server-side document annotation services and issue routes for
listing, creating, commenting, resolving, and reopening annotation
threads.
- Included annotation summaries in relevant issue document reads and
backup/recovery document workspace behavior.
- Added React UI for inline document highlights, comment panels, mobile
sheet behavior, deep-link focus, and resolved/open filtering.
- Added annotation design artifacts, Storybook coverage, screenshots,
and a screenshot helper script.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` and
renumbered the annotation migration from `0085_old_swarm` to
`0091_old_swarm`; the SQL uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards so environments
that previously applied the old migration number can safely apply the
new one.
- Adjusted the new annotation UI tests to use a local async flush helper
because this workspace's React 19.2.4 export does not expose
`React.act`.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/document-anchors.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/document-annotations-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/DocumentAnnotationLayer.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/document-annotation-hash.test.ts
ui/src/lib/document-annotation-selection.test.ts`
- Confirmed `git diff --check` passes.
- Confirmed no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` files are
included in the PR diff.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this adds new persisted annotation tables and routes
across db/shared/server/ui.
- Migration risk is reduced by moving the branch migration to
`0091_old_swarm` after upstream `0090_resource_memberships` and keeping
the SQL idempotent for old `0085_old_swarm` adopters.
- UI risk is mostly around text range anchoring and panel positioning
across long documents, folded content, and mobile layouts; the PR
includes focused unit coverage and design screenshots.
> 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, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-using software engineering
mode. Context window size is not exposed in this Paperclip runtime.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Devin Foley
Dotta
Jannes Stubbemann