## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane for teams of AI agents.
> - Agent runs currently use direct adapters and their established
finalization paths.
> - The new runner package needs one production integration before it
can execute a real provider through the server.
> - That integration must not change direct adapters or expose
unsupported providers.
> - The rollout must also preserve native runs that were already
recorded when the feature flag changes.
> - This pull request adds a default-off, Codex-only native execution
path and its authority boundary.
> - The benefit is a recoverable production vertical slice with explicit
compatibility guards.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting server orchestration and adapter selection.
**Problem or motivation**
The runner package exists, but the server cannot yet start and recover a
governed Codex run through it. A careless integration could also route
existing direct adapters into the native runtime or lose cancellation
and finalization state.
**Proposed solution**
Add a hidden `paperclip_runner` adapter for Codex. Keep it behind the
default-off instance flag. Bind native execution, resume, cancellation,
semantic tool authority, and finalization to the recorded company,
issue, run, and coordinator identities. Leave every direct adapter on
its existing path.
**Alternatives considered**
A multi-provider launch was rejected because only Codex has the complete
production bridge in this series. Replacing direct adapter execution was
rejected because the runner remains experimental.
**Roadmap alignment**
This work supports governed tool access, action attribution, and
self-healing runs. It keeps the integration narrow and default-off.
## What Changed
- Add the Codex-only native session executor and persisted resumption
path.
- Add run-scoped semantic tool projection, authorization, receipts, and
idempotency.
- Add audited native cancellation with durable issue and coordinator
binding.
- Add result fencing so a recorded result cannot reacquire the provider
and run twice.
- Reject fresh runner starts when the rollout flag is off while
preserving recorded native recovery.
- Keep direct adapters outside native status, cancellation, record
creation, and finalization.
- Add focused conformance, recovery, cancellation, status, portability,
and compatibility coverage.
## Verification
- GitHub Actions is the authoritative test environment for this large
stack.
- The PR policy and lightweight stack checks run while this is a middle
PR.
- The full required suite runs when this PR becomes the lowest unmerged
or top PR.
- Greptile will review this exact delta after the branch is pushed.
## Risks
- The main risk is routing a legacy adapter into native execution.
Runtime selection and heartbeat tests cover that boundary.
- The next risk is stale or cross-company cancellation. Durable binding
checks and transactional audit persistence cover it.
- The adapter remains hidden and default-off. Only Codex is admitted.
- There are no database migration, lockfile, or GitHub workflow changes
in this PR.
## Stack
1. [Runner package, SDK, and developer
tools](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12608)
2. This PR: Codex production server integration
3. [Provider-neutral task-thread
UI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12617)
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, extended reasoning, repository tools, and
parallel review agents.
## 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
- [ ] 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
- [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 runner package is useful only when the application can start,
observe, and recover a native Codex run safely.
> - Existing direct adapters must keep their current execution and
finalization paths.
> - The application boundary therefore needs additive persistence,
authorization, coordination, and recovery behind an explicit
experimental adapter.
> - This pull request adds that Codex-only boundary without activating
generalized providers, remote environments, or the later task/SDK
surfaces.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Shared contracts, database persistence, adapter utilities, server
native-runtime services, and the experimental Paperclip Runner adapter.
**Problem or motivation**
The already-landed runner package has a qualified Codex path, but the
application needs durable native-run state, guarded runtime selection,
authenticated coordination, tool security, finalization, and recovery
before the experimental adapter can be exercised safely.
**Proposed solution**
Add a Codex-only `paperclip_runner` application path behind the existing
default-off native-runner setting. Bind native state and coordination to
company/run identity, preserve persisted-run recovery, and leave every
direct adapter on its existing legacy execution path.
**Alternatives considered**
The earlier stack boundary introduced a generalized executor and
remote-environment lifecycle here. That made this PR depend on
implementations in higher PRs and changed reusable sandbox behavior
globally. Those pieces are now deferred together to #12592.
**Roadmap alignment**
ROADMAP.md does not list a conflicting native-runner integration
project. This change adds the application boundary for the existing
Runner architecture.
## What Changed
- Added native run/result/finalization/provider-trace persistence,
shared validators, and idempotent migration/replay coverage.
- Added guarded Codex-only runtime selection, authenticated PRP
coordination, recovery, finalization, and interaction services.
- Added run/company-bound tool-gateway authorization, credential
redaction, SSRF protections, and replay-safe behavior.
- Added the explicit `paperclip_runner` adapter behind the default-off
rollout setting.
- Preserved legacy answered-question wake projection and direct-adapter
execution/finalization paths.
- Hardened cancellation so only owned in-memory child processes are
signaled; persisted recycled PIDs/process groups are never trusted.
- Retained the narrow Claude ACPX isolated-context security follow-up
discovered after #12590.
- Deferred the generalized executor, provider ingress, remote lifecycle,
SDK/lab/eval work, release-process changes, and lockfile.
## Verification
- Changed-file delta against `master`: 133 files.
- GitHub Actions is the authoritative verification environment for this
PR.
- Full CI, security, and Greptile review will run on this lowest
unmerged stack PR.
- Local tests/build/typecheck were not run because this checkout is
resource constrained.
- Static diff/reference checks pass, and `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged.
## Risks
- This touches central heartbeat and agent-route code, so legacy
compatibility is the primary risk.
- Runtime selection remains Codex-only and explicit; direct Codex,
Claude, OpenCode, process, HTTP, and plugin adapters remain on their
existing paths.
- Fresh native starts fail closed while the rollout flag is off;
persisted native records remain readable and recoverable.
- Cancellation, company/run binding, tool calls, status decisions, and
completion writes are guarded or replay-safe.
> 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.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with repository tools, code execution, and
parallel agent review.
## 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 linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR
following the relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — GitHub Actions is
authoritative for this resource-constrained checkout
- [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 risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI and security gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open actionable findings
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge
## Stack
- Position: 3 of 5 overall; lowest of 3 currently unmerged
- Base: `master`
- Previous:
[#12590](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12590), qualified
Claude ACPX runtime — merged
- Next: [#12592](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12592),
generalized Codex executor, task experience, and developer SDKs
---------
Co-authored-by: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Heartbeat wake payloads and the task-context markdown are the two
channels that deliver an issue's brief into an agent's prompt
> - #10151 fixed wake-prompt-only adapter lanes waking without the issue
description by adding it to the structured wake payload
> - That left the description delivered twice per prompt on lanes that
also inject the task-context markdown, and re-delivered in full on every
resume wake, permanently bloating persistent-session context
> - This pull request makes the task markdown the single description
carrier on lanes that use it, and omits the description from
non-assignment resume deltas on all lanes while keeping it for
assignment-shaped and recovery wakes
> - The benefit is that every lane receives the brief exactly once when
it needs it, and long-lived sessions stop re-paying the full brief in
tokens on every wake
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10151
Related prior work: #2883, #8402 (earlier description-delivery attempts
referenced by #10151). I searched the PR list for open work on
wake-payload description handling and found none besides the merged
#10151.
**Bug:** After #10151, adapters that inject the `Paperclip task context`
markdown (ACPX engine lanes, claude-local CLI, hermes server and
gateway) receive the issue description twice in a single prompt — once
in the wake prompt's `Issue description:` block and once in the task
markdown. Separately, resume deltas re-send the full description (up to
12k characters) on every wake even though the persistent session already
received it.
**Expected behavior:** The description appears exactly once per prompt
on every lane, and resume deltas only carry it when the resuming session
may not have seen the brief (assignment-shaped or recovery wakes),
leaving an explicit fetch breadcrumb otherwise.
**Reproduction:** Wake a claude-local or ACPX agent on an issue with a
description and inspect the assembled prompt: the description text
appears in both the wake-payload block and the task-context block. Wake
the same session again via a comment: the full description is present
again in the resume delta.
**Affected version:** Current `master` (with #10151 merged).
**Deployment mode:** Adapter-backed heartbeat execution, local and
sandboxed lanes.
## What Changed
- `renderPaperclipWakePrompt` accepts `suppressIssueDescription`; the
four task-markdown lanes pass it so the task markdown stays the single,
uncapped description carrier there.
- Non-assignment resume deltas omit the description and emit `- issue
description: omitted from this resume delta; fetch the issue if you need
the latest brief`. Assignment-shaped reasons (`issue_assigned`,
`issue_reopened_via_comment`, `issue_recovery_action_restored`,
`issue_tree_restored`) and recovery wakes still deliver the full brief.
- `buildPaperclipTaskMarkdown` gains `includeDescription`; the server
now also publishes `context.paperclipTaskMarkdownCompact` (description
stripped, directives and wake comment kept), and the new
`selectPaperclipTaskMarkdown` helper picks the right variant under the
same resume rules, falling back to the full markdown when no compact
variant exists (version skew safety).
- The wake prompt's description block now carries the same user-authored
trust framing the task markdown already had.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/acp.test.ts
packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/acp.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts` — 137 tests
passed, including new coverage for suppression, resume omission plus
breadcrumb, assignment-shaped resume inclusion, compact-variant
building, variant selection, and an end-to-end ACPX prompt-assembly test
asserting the description appears exactly once on fresh wakes and not at
all on comment resumes.
- `npx vitest run` in `packages/adapters/hermes` — 59 tests passed,
including a gateway execute-level test asserting the brief is sent
exactly once on fresh runs and not re-sent on stable-session resumes.
- `tsc --noEmit` in `packages/adapter-utils`,
`packages/adapters/claude-local`, `packages/adapters/hermes` — clean;
`server` matches the `master` baseline exactly (pre-existing plugin-sdk
resolution errors only, none in touched files).
- Pre-existing failures confirmed identical on clean `master`:
claude-local `execute.remote.test.ts` / `test.probe.test.ts`,
adapter-utils `mcp-isolation.integration.test.ts` (requires a newer
local Claude CLI).
## Risks
- Behavioral shift, prompt-only: a resumed session woken by a comment on
an issue it never handled (rare — assignment wakes normally precede
comment wakes) would not get the inline description; the breadcrumb plus
the standard issue-fetch path covers it.
- Additive context key (`paperclipTaskMarkdownCompact`); older adapters
ignore it and newer adapters fall back to the full markdown when it is
absent, so mixed-version deployments degrade to current behavior.
- No schema, migration, or API changes; the structured wake-payload JSON
shape is unchanged.
- Known follow-up deliberately out of scope: openclaw embeds the raw
wake-payload JSON (which still contains the description) in prompt text
for machine parsing. The hermes-gateway lane is handled: it detects
stable-session resumes (issue/agent session-key strategy plus a stored
prior session id), compacts the task markdown, and omits the description
from its prompt-embedded JSON copy.
> This is a focused correctness/efficiency fix to existing wake plumbing
and does not overlap with planned roadmap feature work.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking
enabled, with repository tool use, shell execution, and local test
execution 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)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
(execution-workspace branch, same convention as merged #10202)
- [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
(code-level docs; no user-facing docs affected)
- [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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <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
> - Issue-thread interactions are the subsystem that lets board users
answer structured prompts and resume agent work
> - Checkbox confirmations capture a selected subset of known options,
then wake the assignee through continuation context
> - The wake context previously carried generic interaction metadata,
but not the accepted checkbox option ids or option labels
> - That meant the resumed agent could be woken after a checkbox
confirmation without seeing the board's selected options in the turn
context
> - This pull request carries accepted checkbox selections through the
interaction continuation wake snapshot and renders them into the adapter
wake prompt
> - The benefit is that agents can act on checkbox-confirmation
selections without refetching or guessing the user's choices
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. Searched public issues and
PRs for checkbox confirmation / continuation selection duplicates and
found no matching issue or PR.
### Pre-submission checklist
- [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a
duplicate.
- [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip or can reproduce
on `master`.
- [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in
my agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration.
### What happened?
When a board user accepted a `request_checkbox_confirmation`
interaction, the assignee continuation wake included generic interaction
metadata but did not include the accepted checkbox selections. The
resumed agent turn therefore had no in-prompt access to the selected
option ids or option labels/descriptions.
### Expected behavior
When a `request_checkbox_confirmation` interaction is accepted, the
resumed agent wake should include the checkbox prompt, selected option
ids, and selected option labels/descriptions so the agent can act on the
selected subset directly.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Create an issue-thread `request_checkbox_confirmation` interaction
with multiple options and `continuationPolicy: "wake_assignee"`.
2. Accept the interaction with one or more selected options.
3. Inspect the continuation wake payload/prompt received by the
assignee.
4. Observe that the selected checkbox options are missing from the wake
context before this fix.
### Paperclip version or commit
Reproduced against the pre-fix code path on `master`; this PR head is
`9d17e70bce373e4850117f30c015c973c4b61789`.
### Deployment mode
Local dev (pnpm dev) / built from source.
### Installation method
Built from source (pnpm dev / pnpm build).
### Agent adapter(s) involved
Not adapter-specific (core bug). The Codex/local adapter path exposed
the missing wake context, but the missing field was in core interaction
continuation payload construction.
### Database mode
Embedded PGlite or external Postgres; the bug is not database-mode
specific.
### Access context
Both. Board users resolve the checkbox interaction, and agent bearer-key
wakes consume the continuation context.
### Node.js version
`v22.22.2`
### Operating system
Linux workspace.
### Relevant logs or output
No runtime exception is required to reproduce this. The failure mode is
missing `checkboxSelection` data in the resolved interaction
continuation wake payload.
### Relevant config
Not config-related.
### Additional context
Root cause: accepted checkbox interaction results were not extracted
into the continuation wake context, and adapter wake payload
normalization/rendering had no typed `checkboxSelection` field.
### Privacy checklist
- [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII (usernames, file paths,
API keys, tokens, company names) and redacted where necessary.
## What Changed
- Added checkbox selection extraction for accepted
`request_checkbox_confirmation` interactions and stored it in
interaction continuation wake context.
- Included checkbox selection context in heartbeat wake payload
construction.
- Added adapter-utils normalization and wake prompt rendering for
checkbox prompt, selected ids, and selected option details.
- Added regression coverage for route continuation context, heartbeat
payload summaries, and adapter wake prompt rendering.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
- `rg -n "checkbox|confirmation|interaction|wake|continuation"
ROADMAP.md`
- `gh pr list --state all --search "checkbox continuation selection
repo:paperclipai/paperclip" --json number,title,state,url,headRefName
--limit 20`
- `gh issue list --state all --search "checkbox confirmation options
repo:paperclipai/paperclip" --json number,title,state,url --limit 20`
## Risks
Low risk. The new payload field is additive, only populated for accepted
checkbox confirmations, and existing continuation fields are preserved.
The main compatibility risk is downstream code assuming an exact wake
payload shape; adapter normalization treats the new field as optional.
> 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/tool execution in
this workspace.
## 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.
> - Issue work mode controls how a task starts and how the conversation
composer frames the operator's intent.
> - Paperclip already supports standard agent execution and planning
mode, but there is no lightweight mode for asking a question without
immediately implying execution or plan drafting.
> - That gap makes low-commitment clarification workflows look like
normal task execution.
> - This pull request adds an explicit Ask mode and threads it through
shared contracts, server heartbeat context, and the issue composer UI.
> - The benefit is that operators can create or switch a task into a
question-oriented mode while preserving existing agent and planning
flows.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Inline feature request
follows the repository feature request template.
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting: `packages/shared`, `server/`, and `ui/`.
### Problem or motivation
Issue conversations currently distinguish standard agent work from
planning work, but question-first conversations do not have a clear
public mode in the shared contract or UI. Operators who want to ask an
agent a focused question have to use standard mode, which can imply
normal task execution, or planning mode, which asks for a plan rather
than an answer.
### Proposed solution
Add Ask as a first-class issue work mode. It should be selectable from
issue creation and issue chat, cycle alongside Standard and Planning
from the keyboard shortcut/menu, appear distinctly in composer styling,
and be included in heartbeat context so agents know to answer directly
instead of executing or drafting a plan.
### Alternatives considered
- Keep using standard mode for questions: rejected because it does not
communicate answer-only intent to the agent or the UI.
- Reuse planning mode for questions: rejected because planning mode asks
for a plan and is semantically different from asking a question.
- Add only local UI copy: rejected because the mode needs to be
represented in the shared contract and server heartbeat context to be
reliable.
### Roadmap alignment
This is a focused issue-workflow improvement. `ROADMAP.md` was checked
and no duplicate planned core work was found.
### Additional context
Related public searches performed before opening this PR:
- GitHub PR search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip`
- GitHub issue search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip`
- GitHub PR search for `"work mode" "ask" repo:paperclipai/paperclip`
No duplicate PR was found.
## What Changed
- Added `ask` to the shared issue work-mode contract and validation
coverage.
- Included issue work mode in heartbeat context summaries so agents can
see standard, planning, and ask state.
- Added Ask mode metadata, styling, composer tone handling, and
selection/cycling behavior in the issue chat/new issue UI.
- Updated focused tests for shared validators, heartbeat context, and
affected UI work-mode flows.
## Verification
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
The broader targeted command passed 8 test files / 245 tests.
Visual reference for Standard/Planning/Ask composer states:
https://gist.github.com/cryppadotta/714d8590bac55500a65e7e16de5bb4b8
It emitted an expected warning from an existing server test fixture
about a missing run-log fixture while verifying derived issue comment
metadata.
## Risks
Low to moderate risk. This adds a new enum value that crosses shared,
server, and UI contracts. Existing standard and planning modes are
preserved, but any downstream code assuming only two non-terminal work
modes may need to handle `ask`.
> 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 GPT-5 Codex coding agent in Paperclip CodexCoder mode, with
shell, git, GitHub connector, and local test execution tools. Context
window and exact hosted model snapshot are not exposed in this 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 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/...`,
`feat/...`) 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] 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 orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so
planning approvals and child-issue fan-out are part of the core
control-plane loop.
> - Accepted plans are supposed to be a safe bridge from planning into
execution, especially when agents wake from review decisions and reuse
isolated workspaces.
> - The duplicate-subtask incident showed that an accepted plan revision
could be interpreted more than once across overlapping runs, which broke
the single-source-of-truth model for issue decomposition.
> - Fixing that required tightening the backend contract first:
accepted-plan decomposition needs an exact-once fingerprint, durable
claim state, and retry-safe child creation.
> - Once that backend behavior existed, the board still needed
visibility into what happened, so the issue detail view needed a
dedicated decomposition section instead of forcing operators to
reconstruct child creation from raw activity.
> - This pull request adds the exact-once decomposition primitive,
hardens wake routing and regressions around the incident, and surfaces
decomposition state in the UI so future incidents are both prevented and
easier to inspect.
## What Changed
- Added accepted-plan decomposition semantics to
`doc/execution-semantics.md`, including the exact-once fingerprint,
durable claim/result expectations, and retry/resume behavior.
- Added persistent accepted-plan decomposition claims in the backend,
including schema, shared types/validators, service logic, and issue
routes for creating and listing decomposition state.
- Hardened heartbeat routing so an accepted-plan continuation stays
scoped to the relevant planning issue instead of opportunistically
re-decomposing another accepted issue on the same assignee.
- Added regression coverage for the original failure modes: concurrent
same-parent retries, cross-issue accepted-plan isolation, and partial
child recreation under the same fingerprint.
- Added the `Plan decomposition` issue-detail section plus supporting
API/query-key/activity formatting updates so operators can see revision
status, owner, child counts, and the linked child issues directly in the
UI.
- Included the small follow-up UI fix so the decomposition section still
renders when the issue work mode is no longer `planning`.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t
"lists persisted decompositions with child issue summaries"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t
"accepted plan decomposition"
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts`
- Manual UI path: create a planning issue without an isolated execution
workspace, add a `plan` document, accept the `request_confirmation`, let
Paperclip create child issues, then reopen the parent issue detail page
and confirm the `Plan decomposition` section shows the accepted
revision, status, idempotent-claim badge, and child links.
- Separate follow-up bug noted during manual UI validation: accepting a
plan on an issue whose run never records `workspace_finalize` is tracked
in `PAPA-445` and is not part of this PR’s fix scope.
## Risks
- This adds a new migration and a large Drizzle snapshot update;
reviewers should confirm the schema shape and generated metadata match
the intended decomposition table.
- The exact-once claim changes sit on the accepted-plan fan-out path, so
regressions there could block legitimate child creation or mis-handle
retries if the claim state machine is wrong.
- The new UI only appears when decomposition records exist; reviewers
should use the manual verification path above rather than expecting
existing issues on a stale local instance to show the section
automatically.
- `PAPA-445` remains an open follow-up for the `workspace_finalize`
accept gate when a planning handoff never records finalize; that bug can
interfere with reproducing the UI flow on isolated workspaces but does
not change the correctness of the exact-once decomposition feature
itself.
> Checked `ROADMAP.md`: this PR is a bug fix / control-plane hardening
change for accepted-plan decomposition, not a new uncoordinated roadmap
feature.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` (GPT-5-based coding agent;
exact backend model ID/context window not exposed in the run context),
with repository tool use, shell execution, and code-editing
capabilities.
<img width="806" height="1069" alt="Screenshot 2026-05-27 at 11 05
48 PM"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5b00b670-96cd-4470-b0a3-581743bcae28"
/>
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies.
> - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board
users and agents coordinate execution.
> - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead
of immediate implementation work.
> - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution
comments from planning-oriented issue work.
> - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI
affordances for standard vs planning mode.
> - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed,
discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing
the normal issue workflow.
## What Changed
- Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB,
shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and
adapter heartbeat payloads.
- Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for
`issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations.
- Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction
behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested
follow-up issues.
- Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail
composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles.
- Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual
verification spec for planning-mode surfaces.
- Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable
planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`
- `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config
tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts`
## Screenshots
Desktop planning detail:
Desktop planning row:
Desktop staged standard toggle:
Mobile planning detail:
Mobile planning row:
## Risks
- Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The
migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied
an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final
numbered migration safely.
- Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter
heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by
defaulting missing values to `standard`.
- UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused
component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning
display and toggle behavior.
> 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 in a local Paperclip worktree, with
shell/tool use. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this
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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Heartbeat runs are the control-plane record of what agents did, why
they woke up, and what operators should see next
> - Run lists, stranded issue comments, and live log polling all depend
on compact but accurate heartbeat summaries
> - The current branch had a focused backend slice that improves how run
result JSON is summarized, how stale process recovery comments are
written, and how live log polling resolves the active run
> - This pull request isolates that heartbeat/runtime reliability work
from the unrelated UI and dev-tooling changes
> - The benefit is more reliable issue context and cheaper run lookups
without dragging unrelated board UI changes into the same review
## What Changed
- Include the latest run failure in stranded issue comments during
orphaned process recovery.
- Bound heartbeat `result_json` payloads for list responses while
preserving the raw stored payloads.
- Narrow heartbeat log endpoint lookups so issue polling resolves the
relevant active run with less unnecessary scanning.
- Add focused tests for heartbeat list summaries, live run polling,
orphaned process recovery, and the run context/result summary helpers.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-list.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-live-run-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts`
## Risks
- The main risk is accidentally hiding a field that some client still
expects from summarized `result_json`, or over-constraining the live log
lookup path for edge-case run routing.
- Recovery comments now surface the latest failure more aggressively, so
wording changes may affect downstream expectations if anyone parses
those comments too strictly.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in the Codex CLI environment.
Exact backend model deployment ID was not exposed in-session.
Tool-assisted editing and shell execution were used.
## 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 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
Dotta
Devin Foley
