## 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 resume blocked work through the `issue_blockers_resolved`
wake when every durable blocker is `done`
> - That wake is level-triggered: one ready state produces one wake,
shared by the issue update route, workspace-finalize backstop, and
periodic liveness backstop
> - The ready-state key hashed only the dependent id and blocker set, so
it ignored a later reset from a terminal status back into `blocked`
> - After that reset, completing the same blockers found the previous
cycle's completed wake and suppressed the new continuation
> - This pull request folds the dependent's `blockedTransitionAt` into
the ready-state key, with compatibility for old no-cycle keys
> - The benefit is that a reset blocked issue receives exactly one new
wake without watchdog status repair or a change to blocker edges
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/5985
Refs: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/6555
Related: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/8009
Related: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/11570
This change does not auto-flip `blocked` to `todo`. The wake is the
continuation. It also does not treat cancelled blockers as resolved.
**What happened?**
A blocked assigned issue that was previously `done` or `cancelled`, then
reset to `blocked` on the same blocker set, did not receive
`issue_blockers_resolved` when those blockers later returned to `done`.
A completed wake from the previous cycle reused the same level-triggered
state key and suppressed the new wake. Route-time emit,
workspace-finalize backstop, and periodic liveness backstop all used
that helper.
**Expected behavior**
When every durable blocker is `done`, a currently `blocked` assigned
issue must receive exactly one valid `issue_blockers_resolved`
continuation for the current blocked cycle. A completed wake from an
earlier cycle must not suppress it. Watchdog `blocked` → `todo` repair
must not be required.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Assign issue B, block it on issue A, mark A `done`, and let B receive
`issue_blockers_resolved`.
2. Mark B `done`.
3. Reset A to `todo` and reset B from `done` to `blocked` on the same A
id. This refreshes `blockedTransitionAt`.
4. Mark A `done` again.
5. Observe that B stays `blocked` with no new `issue_blockers_resolved`
wake.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at `cc42a67e7e9e8eb183097afc8ff4ebfa694fb3e0`
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server
## What Changed
- Extend `buildIssueBlockersResolvedWakeStateKey` so the digest includes
the dependent's `blockedTransitionAt` as UTC ISO-8601, or `none`
- Thread `blockedTransitionAt` through `listWakeableBlockedDependents`,
both route emit sites, and both backstop candidate selects
- Keep compatibility: new cycle-aware keys suppress in idempotent
statuses; old no-cycle state keys suppress when in-flight, or when
completed and `requestedAt >= blockedTransitionAt` (or the cycle is
null); legacy per-edge keys stay in-flight-only
- Do not rewrite `blockedByIssueIds`, auto-flip `blocked` → `todo`, or
delete historical wake rows
- Add helper, route, restore, chained dependent, and backstop tests for
the reset cycle
## Verification
```
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run \
src/__tests__/issue-dependency-wakeups-routes.test.ts \
src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts \
src/services/issue-dependency-wakeups.ts \
src/services/issue-dependency-wakeups.test.ts
```
Local result: all named tests passed (helper 9, routes 8, liveness 26).
## Risks
- Deploy overlap: in-flight and same-cycle completed wakes still exist
under the old no-cycle key. The lookup keeps those as suppressors so
this change does not enqueue a duplicate in the current cycle.
- A completed old-key wake from before the current `blockedTransitionAt`
no longer suppresses. That is the intended fix.
- No schema migration. Rollback is revert of this PR.
- This does not change cancelled-blocker semantics or watchdog `blocked`
→ `todo` repair.
> 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
- Provider: xAI
- Model: Grok 4.6
- Tool use and code execution: yes
- Human-authored: no
## 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 manages work for AI agents.
> - The workspace runtime starts isolated services for concurrent
workspaces.
> - A runtime test assumed that one concurrent lane always received the
base port.
> - The allocator guarantees distinct ports, but scheduling decides
which lane receives the base port.
> - This pull request changes the test to assert allocator guarantees
without lane-order assumptions.
> - The benefit is a stable test that still checks the complete bounded
port range.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The concurrent sibling workspace runtime test failed intermittently
because it assumed array index 0 received the base port.
**Expected behavior**
The test must accept either lane as the base-port owner while it checks
the allocator invariants.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start two isolated workspace runtimes with `Promise.all`.
2. Force the second lane to start first.
3. Run the old assertions.
4. Observe that the test expects the wrong lane to receive the base
port.
**Paperclip version or commit**
This change targets the current `master` branch.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source test suite.
**Installation method**
Built from source with pnpm.
**Database mode**
Not database-related.
## What Changed
- Replace lane-order assertions with order-independent port invariants.
- Assert distinct ports, the base lower port, and the bounded upper
port.
- Keep concurrent startup, service URL checks, and persisted-row checks.
## Verification
- The target test passed 12 consecutive runs.
- The full test file passed 128 of 128 tests.
- Both forced lane orderings passed with the new invariants.
- TypeScript reported no errors in the changed file.
- CI will run after this pull request opens.
## Risks
Low risk. This pull request changes one test file and does not change
runtime code.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code execution enabled. The model
reviewed and prepared the pull request metadata.
## 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.
> - Paperclip uses issue dependencies to pause work until blockers reach
a ready state.
> - A blocked issue with several blockers can miss its wake when the
final blocker completes.
> - The wake deduplication used a historical per-edge key, so an old
completed wake hid the current ready state.
> - This pull request adds a level-triggered key for the sorted set of
blocker issue ids and uses one helper for all wake paths.
> - The benefit is that the final blocker wake can repair a missed wake,
while repeated reconciliation stays bounded.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #8009, #7853, and #6719. These public pull requests cover related
dependency-wake and deduplication behavior. This pull request fixes a
separate multi-blocker state-key gap.
**What happened?**
A blocked issue with multiple blockers received no
`issue_blockers_resolved` wake when the final blocker completed. An
earlier completed per-edge wake suppressed the wake for the current
all-ready state.
**Expected behavior**
The final blocker completion must emit one wake for the current ready
state. A later reconciliation pass must not emit a second wake for the
same state.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a blocked issue with at least two blocker issues.
2. Complete one blocker and record its completed per-edge wake.
3. Complete the final blocker.
4. Run the route-time or reconciliation wake path.
5. Confirm that one level-triggered wake exists for the sorted blocker
set.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`eed1e5cad91a37547e1b521232da04b9ddb316f0`
**Deployment mode**
Local dev from source.
## What Changed
- Add a SHA-256 level-triggered idempotency key from the sorted blocker
issue ids.
- Share one deduplication helper across route-time, finalize-time, and
periodic wake paths.
- Treat state-key rows with idempotent statuses as duplicates.
- Treat legacy per-edge rows as duplicates only while they remain in
flight.
- Record skipped route-time wakes without suppressing later
finalize-time or periodic wakes.
- Add regression coverage for a completed earlier-blocker wake and a
second reconciliation pass.
## Verification
- Run `npx vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-dependency-wakeups-routes.test.ts`.
- Run `npx vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts`.
- Run `npx vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`.
- Run `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-rewake-throttle.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/recovery-stale-issue-lock-sweep.test.ts`.
- Run `tsc --noEmit` on the touched files.
## Risks
The change alters wake deduplication for dependency reconciliation. The
new key uses the full sorted blocker set, so a change in that set
permits a new wake. The regression tests cover the missed-final-blocker
case and repeated reconciliation.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool-use model with code execution and repository
review support.
## 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 control plane that lets humans govern companies of
AI agents.
> - Issue-thread interactions are the structured handoff point for
confirmations, questions, suggested tasks, and other governed decisions.
> - Those interactions previously assumed that only board users could
resolve them, preventing one agent from explicitly addressing another
agent for a response.
> - Agent resolution needs company-level governance, auditable resolver
identity, safe terminal-state handling, and attention routing so
authorization is enforced server-side rather than inferred from UI
behavior.
> - This pull request adds governed agent resolution, withdrawal and
terminal expiry semantics, explicit agent addressees, lifecycle
reconciliation, and attention-feed filtering.
> - The benefit is that agents can participate in structured decisions
without weakening board control, company isolation, wake behavior, or
audit invariants.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
Issue-thread interactions across database, shared contracts, server
authorization/services, adapter callbacks, agent skill guidance, API
docs, and UI governance surfaces.
### Problem or motivation
Structured interactions were board-only, had no explicit agent
addressee, and lacked durable withdrawal/terminal-expiry semantics. That
made peer-agent decisions impossible to authorize and audit safely.
### Proposed solution
Persist requested/effective resolver policy and addressee identity,
enforce company governance and eligible agent resolution, reconcile
addressee lifecycle changes, expose withdrawal and terminal expiry, and
route attention to the intended active agent with board fallback.
### Alternatives considered
Implicitly authorizing the issue assignee or mentioned agents was
rejected as ambiguous and difficult to audit. Using comments alone was
rejected because it loses structured outcomes and continuation behavior.
### Roadmap alignment
Supports the ROADMAP direction for lightweight leadership-agent
communication that still resolves into governed decisions and work
objects.
### Additional context
Public GitHub issue/PR search found no duplicate implementation; open PR
search for interaction resolver governance and agent addressees only
returned this PR.
## What Changed
- Add company-scoped interaction resolver governance contracts and
persistence.
- Add requested/effective resolver policy, resolver identity,
withdrawal, and terminal-expiry behavior.
- Add explicit `addresseeAgentId` validation, authorization,
persistence, lifecycle reconciliation, API documentation, and skill
guidance.
- Route pending addressed interactions to the intended invokable agent
and fall back to board attention when that agent becomes ineligible or
is deleted.
- Preserve sandbox callback identity fields required by governed
resolution paths.
- Add migrations `0193` and `0194` plus route, service, attention,
adapter, CLI, and UI coverage.
- Add governance state and company settings UI, including responsive
mobile behavior and distinct withdrawn/expired audit presentation.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety
checks.
- `pnpm test:run` — feature/server and UI workspace suites passed; one
unrelated CLI AWS doctor test observed injected static AWS credentials
and warned instead of passing.
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest
run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts --project paperclipai` — 8 tests
passed, confirming the failure was environment-sensitive.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- Latest rebased head `e24cece6be9f1877bdbac7691bcb44fd583c0161`
completed all GitHub CI jobs successfully.
## Risks
- Migrations add interaction and company-governance fields; numbering is
conflict-free on current `master`, additive statements are idempotent,
and migration safety checks pass.
- Agent authorization behavior expands beyond board-only resolution, but
defaults remain board-only and coverage exercises company boundaries,
resolver eligibility, lifecycle invalidation, wake behavior, withdrawal,
expiry, and attention fallback.
- Attention routing depends on current agent invokability;
reconciliation and read-time filtering prevent stale addressees from
retaining visibility or resolution authority.
> 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 using `gpt-5.6-sol` with reasoning, terminal tool use,
code execution, Git/GitHub integration, and Paperclip control-plane
tools. Context-window metadata was not reported 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate
AI-agent companies.
> - Issue status transitions determine whether work keeps moving or
silently stalls.
> - A blocked issue previously could rely on prose alone, leaving the
intended unblock owner unstructured and unnotified.
> - Existing blocker-attention classification could identify stalled
chains, but the signal was not delivered to the board attention feed.
> - Blocked transitions also need rollout-safe deduplication so upgrades
do not notify for historical issues and repeated processing does not
create notification storms.
> - This pull request adds structured unblock descriptors, prospective
transition timestamps, owner delivery, and board attention routing with
focused authorization controls.
> - The benefit is that newly blocked work has an explicit, routable
next action without weakening company boundaries or allowing agents to
inject arbitrary human attention items.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related documentation PR: #10094.
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/db`, and `packages/shared`.
### Problem or motivation
An issue can enter `blocked` without a machine-readable unblock path.
Prose-only ownership does not reliably wake the responsible agent or
surface human-owned work, while the existing `blockerAttention`
classifier is not delivered to an operator-facing attention feed.
### Proposed solution
Require new transitions into `blocked` to have unresolved blockers, a
pending interaction/approval, or a structured `{ owner, action }`
descriptor. Notify an allowed owner once per prospective transition,
route human-owned cases to board attention, and leave pre-rollout
blocked issues untouched.
### Alternatives considered
- Keep prose-only blockers: rejected because ownership remains
unroutable.
- Backfill all historical blocked issues: rejected because upgrades
would create notification storms.
- Let agents target arbitrary users or the board: rejected after
security review because it creates an attention-injection channel.
### Roadmap alignment
Aligns with `ROADMAP.md` → “Enforced Outcomes (watchdogs, recovery
actions, review gates)” by making blocked work carry an explicit
continuation path.
### Additional context
The implementation is prospective-only and deduplicated per blocked
transition. Agent-authored descriptors are limited to the acting agent;
board actors retain human-owner routing.
## What Changed
- Added persisted unblock descriptors and prospective blocked-transition
delivery timestamps with an idempotent migration.
- Added shared types and validation for board, user, and agent unblock
owners.
- Enforced valid blocked transitions and same-company owner validation
in the issue update route.
- Restricted agent-authored descriptors to the acting agent itself,
preventing board/user attention injection by compromised agents.
- Added one-per-transition agent wake delivery and prospective-only
rollout gating.
- Routed human-owned blocker attention into the board attention feed.
- Added focused tests for validation, prospective delivery, flap
deduplication, attention routing, route authorization, and stop-relay
compatibility.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routable-blocked.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`
- `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID= AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY= pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
## Risks
- Behavioral shift: new `blocked` transitions without a real blocker,
pending governed action, or structured descriptor now return `422`.
- Notification abuse is constrained by same-company validation, agent
self-only routing, prospective rollout gating, and transition-scoped
deduplication.
- Migration risk is low: columns are additive, nullable, and use `IF NOT
EXISTS`; historical blocked issues are not backfilled or notified.
> 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 CLI with GPT-5.4, reasoning-enabled tool use and code
execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window value.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The 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 an open source platform for managing AI agent companies
— agents pick up issues, do work, and release checkouts in a heartbeat
loop
> - Issue dependency resolution is handled by `issue_blockers_resolved`
wakes: when a blocking issue reaches `done`, dependent blocked issues
should be woken so they can resume
> - The workspace-finalize path maintained its own special-case loop to
retry missed dependency wakes at run completion, duplicating logic that
already exists in the shared level-triggered reconciliation backstop
> - Additionally, the resolved-blocker reconciliation sweep was gated
behind the broader liveness auto-recovery escalation setting — so
instances that disabled auto-escalation creation also lost the baseline
reconciliation sweep
> - This PR routes the workspace-finalize retry through the shared
backstop and decouples the reconciliation sweep from the escalation
creation gate
> - The benefit is simpler code (one authoritative path instead of two),
and correct behaviour on instances where escalation creation is disabled
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing GitHub issue. Describing inline:
**Bug (blocker wake reconciliation):** `issue_blockers_resolved` wakes
can be missed when:
1. A `workspace_finalize` heartbeat retries dependency resolution using
its own inline loop instead of the shared level-triggered backstop,
making them diverge over time.
2. The `blockedByIssueIds` dependency is set (or the issue is moved to
`blocked`) *after* the blocker already reached `done` — the PATCH-time
wake fires on a non-blocked issue and the dependency reconciliation
never catches up.
3. An assignee briefly becomes `null` between the blocker reaching
`done` and the reconciliation sweep running — the sweep skips the issue
and never retries.
Related PRs:
- Refs #8009 — adds dedup for `issue_blockers_resolved` re-fires
(complementary; prevents over-firing; this PR ensures under-firing is
caught)
- Refs #6522 — `auto-unblock dependents with no assignee` (related
no-assignee edge case)
## What Changed
- **`server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`** — remove the inline
dependency-wake retry loop from the `workspace_finalize` path; delegate
to the shared `reconcileResolvedDependencyWakeups` helper instead
- **`server/src/services/recovery/service.ts`** — split the
resolved-blocker wake reconciliation sweep out from under the
`liveness_escalation_auto_recovery` feature flag; the sweep runs
unconditionally while escalation *creation* remains behind the flag
- **`server/src/__tests__/issue-dependency-wakeups-routes.test.ts`** —
regression: `blockedBy` set after blocker already done still triggers a
reconciliation wake
- **`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts`**
— regression: assignee-null churn before reconciliation; stale skipped
dependency wakes do not suppress a fresh reconciliation wake
## Verification
```
pnpm exec vitest run \
server/src/__tests__/issue-dependency-wakeups-routes.test.ts \
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts
```
23 tests, all passing locally. `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
typecheck` clean.
## Risks
Low risk. Bounded blast radius:
- The reconciliation sweep only considers non-hidden `blocked` issues
with an agent assignee
- Uses keyset pagination with an existing 500-candidate cap
- Reuses dependency readiness/finalize gating logic unchanged
- Skips issues with existing active/queued runs and pending interactions
- Deduplicates against live/completed `issue_blockers_resolved` wakes
(skipped/cancelled wakes intentionally do not suppress a fresh
reconciliation)
- Observability: healed reconciliations emit
`issue.blockers_resolved_wake_emitted` activity and log the healed issue
ids and source
## Model Used
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`) with tool use and extended
context. Paperclip AI agent 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)
- [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
- [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-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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so agent
work needs visible ownership, recovery, and operator controls.
> - This local branch had accumulated several related control-plane
reliability and operator-experience fixes across recovery actions,
watchdog folding, model-profile defaults, mentions, markdown editing,
plugin launchers, and small UI polish.
> - The branch needed to be converted into a PR against the current
`origin/master` without losing dirty work or including lockfile/workflow
churn.
> - The safest standalone shape is a single rollup PR because the
recovery/server/UI files overlap heavily across the local commits and
splitting would create avoidable conflicts.
> - This pull request replays the local branch onto latest
`origin/master`, preserves the uncommitted work as logical commits, and
adds a Zod 4 validator compatibility fix found during verification.
> - The benefit is that the May 17 local branch can be reviewed and
merged as one coherent, conflict-free branch under the 100-file Greptile
limit.
## What Changed
- Rebased the local May 17 branch work onto current `origin/master` in a
dedicated worktree.
- Preserved and committed previously dirty changes for recovery retry
handling, plugin/sidebar launcher polish, and `.herenow` ignores.
- Added recovery-action behavior for returning source issues to `todo`
when retrying source-scoped recovery.
- Included the existing local recovery/liveness/watchdog fold, Codex
cheap-profile, markdown/mention, duplicate-agent, and UI polish commits
from the branch.
- Normalized shared validator `z.record(...)` schemas to explicit
string-key records for Zod 4 compatibility.
- Confirmed the PR has no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`
changes and stays below the 100-file Greptile limit.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`
- `npm run install` in
`node_modules/.pnpm/sqlite3@5.1.7/node_modules/sqlite3` to build the
local native sqlite3 binding after installing with scripts disabled
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
packages/shared/src/project-mentions.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/duplicate-agent-payload.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx`
- First pass: 13 files passed with 201 passing tests; 3 server files
failed before sqlite3 native binding was built.
- After rebuilding sqlite3:
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts`,
`server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts`
passed/loaded; embedded Postgres tests were skipped by the local host
guard.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
## Risks
- Medium risk: this is a broad rollup PR across recovery semantics,
server tests, shared validators, and UI surfaces.
- Some embedded Postgres tests skipped locally due the host guard, so CI
should provide the stronger database-backed signal.
- UI changes were covered by component tests, but no browser screenshot
was captured in this PR creation pass.
- This branch may overlap with existing recovery/liveness PR work; merge
this PR independently or restack/close overlapping branches rather than
merging duplicate implementations together.
> 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, tool-enabled local repository
and GitHub workflow, medium reasoning effort.
## 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
- [ ] 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, where work
must end with a clear disposition rather than ambiguous agent liveness.
> - Recovery currently detects stalled or missing-next-step issues, but
source issue recovery can become split across child recovery issues,
blockers, and comments.
> - That makes it harder for operators and agents to see who owns
recovery and what exact action is needed on the original issue.
> - Source-scoped recovery actions give the original issue a first-class
active recovery state with owner, evidence, wake policy, and resolution
outcome.
> - This pull request adds the recovery-action data model, backend
reconciliation and resolution APIs, and board UI indicators/actions.
> - The benefit is clearer stalled-work recovery without losing source
issue context or relying on comments as the liveness path.
## What Changed
- Added the `issue_recovery_actions` schema, shared
types/constants/validators, and an idempotent
`0084_issue_recovery_actions` migration ordered after current `master`
migrations.
- Updated stranded/missing-disposition recovery to create source-scoped
recovery actions, wake the recovery owner on the source issue, and avoid
locking the source issue for recovery-action wakes.
- Added API support for reading active recovery actions on issue
detail/list surfaces and resolving them with restored, blocked,
cancelled, or false-positive outcomes.
- Require blocked recovery resolutions to have an unresolved first-class
blocker, and removed the UI shortcut that could mark recovery blocked
without a blocker selection path.
- Surfaced recovery indicators/actions in the issue UI, blocker notices,
active run panels, issue rows, and Storybook coverage.
- Updated docs and focused tests for recovery semantics, ownership,
races, stale comments, and UI behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts`
— 5 files, 72 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including
migration numbering check.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- Follow-up verification after blocker-resolution guard: `pnpm exec
vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 3 files, 27 tests passed.
- Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- UI states are available in
`ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`; screenshot
capture helper is `scripts/screenshot-recovery-card.cjs`.
## Risks
- Medium: recovery behavior changes from child recovery issue ownership
toward source-scoped actions, so operators may see stalled-work state in
new places.
- Migration risk is mitigated by using the next migration slot after
`master` and making the table/constraints/index creation idempotent for
anyone who previously applied the old branch-local
`0082_dizzy_master_mold` migration.
- Existing child recovery issue paths are still guarded for
already-created recovery issues, but new source-scoped flows should be
watched in CI and Greptile review.
> 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 use enabled for shell, Git,
GitHub, and local test execution. Context window 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 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 the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so
backend task ownership, recovery, review visibility, and company-scoped
limits need to stay enforceable without UI-only coupling.
> - Closed PR #4692 bundled those backend changes with UI workflow,
docs, skills, workflow, and lockfile churn.
> - PAP-2694 asks for a clean backend/control-plane slice from that
closed branch.
> - This branch starts from current `master` and mines only the `cli`,
`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, and `server` contracts/tests needed
for the backend behavior.
> - It explicitly excludes UI workflow/performance work,
`.github/workflows/pr.yml`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, docs, skills,
package-script, adapter UI build-config, and perf fixture script
changes; the only UI files are fixture/test updates required by the
tightened shared `Company` contract.
> - The benefit is a smaller reviewable PR that preserves the
control-plane fixes while staying under Greptile s 100-file review
limit.
## What Changed
- Added company-scoped attachment-size limits through DB
schema/migrations, shared company portability contracts, CLI
import/export coverage, and server attachment upload enforcement.
- Added productivity review service/API behavior for no-comment streak,
long-active, and high-churn review issues, including request-depth
clamping and issue summary exposure.
- Hardened issue ownership and recovery/control-plane paths: peer-agent
mutation denial, issue tree pause/resume behavior, stranded recovery
origins, and related activity/test coverage.
- Preserved related backend contract updates for routine timestamp
variables and managed agent instruction bundles because they live in
shared/server contracts from the source branch.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by making `Company.attachmentMaxBytes`
non-optional, simplifying review request-depth clamping, fixing the
migration final newline, and enforcing the process-level attachment cap
as the final ceiling for uploads.
- Added minimal company fixtures needed for repo-wide typecheck/build
and kept the PR to 66 changed files with forbidden/non-slice paths
excluded.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD`
- `git diff --name-only origin/master..HEAD | wc -l` -> 66 files
- `git diff --name-only origin/master..HEAD -- .github/workflows/pr.yml
pnpm-lock.yaml package.json doc skills .agents scripts
packages/adapters` -> no output
- `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
packages/shared/src/routine-variables.test.ts
packages/shared/src/adapter-types.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` -> 12 files, 147 tests
passed
- `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company-delete.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts` -> 3 files, 18
tests passed
- `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts` -> 1 file, 6 tests
passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/ui build`
## Risks
- Includes migrations `0073_shiny_salo.sql` and
`0074_striped_genesis.sql`; merge ordering matters if another PR adds
migrations first.
- This is intentionally backend-only apart from fixture/test updates
forced by shared type correctness; UI affordances from PR #4692 are not
present here and should land in separate UI slices.
- The worktree install emitted plugin SDK bin-link warnings for unbuilt
plugin packages, but the targeted tests and package typechecks completed
successfully.
> 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 terminal/GitHub
workflow. Exact runtime context window was not exposed by the harness.
## 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
> - A fast-moving control plane needs stable local tests and repeatable
local maintenance tools so contributors can safely split and review work
> - Several route suites needed stronger isolation, Codex manual model
selection needed a faster-mode option, and local browser cleanup missed
Playwright's headless shell binary
> - Storybook static output also needed to be preserved as a generated
review artifact from the working branch
> - This pull request groups the test/local-dev maintenance pieces so
they can be reviewed separately from product runtime changes
> - The benefit is more predictable contributor verification and cleaner
local maintenance without mixing these changes into feature PRs
## What Changed
- Added stable Vitest runner support and serialized route/authz test
isolation.
- Fixed workspace runtime authz route mocks and stabilized
Claude/company-import related assertions.
- Allowed Codex fast mode for manually selected models.
- Broadened the agent browser cleanup script to detect
`chrome-headless-shell` as well as Chrome for Testing.
- Preserved generated Storybook static output from the source branch.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts
src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts --config vitest.config.ts`
from `server/` passed: 2 files, 19 tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run src/server/codex-args.test.ts --config
vitest.config.ts` from `packages/adapters/codex-local/` passed: 1 file,
3 tests.
- `bash -n scripts/kill-agent-browsers.sh &&
scripts/kill-agent-browsers.sh --dry` passed; dry-run detected
`chrome-headless-shell` processes without killing them.
- `test -f ui/storybook-static/index.html && test -f
ui/storybook-static/assets/forms-editors.stories-Dry7qwx2.js` passed.
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..pap-2228-test-local-maintenance --
. ':(exclude)ui/storybook-static'` passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts --config
cli/vitest.config.ts` did not complete in the isolated split worktree
because `paperclipai run` exited during build prep with `TS2688: Cannot
find type definition file for 'react'`; this appears to be caused by the
worktree dependency symlink setup, not the code under test.
- Confirmed this PR does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: the stable Vitest runner changes how route/authz tests
are scheduled.
- Generated `ui/storybook-static` files are large and contain minified
third-party output; `git diff --check` reports whitespace inside those
generated assets, so reviewers may choose to drop or regenerate that
artifact before merge.
- No database migrations.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell, git, Paperclip
API, and GitHub CLI tool use in the local Paperclip 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 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
Note: screenshot checklist item is not applicable to source UI behavior;
the included Storybook static output is generated artifact preservation
from the source branch.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators and agents coordinate through company-scoped issues,
comments, documents, and task relationships.
> - Issue text can mention other tickets, but those references were
previously plain markdown/text without durable relationship data.
> - That made it harder to understand related work, surface backlinks,
and keep cross-ticket context visible in the board.
> - This pull request adds first-class issue reference extraction,
storage, API responses, and UI surfaces.
> - The benefit is that issue references become queryable, navigable,
and visible without relying on ad hoc text scanning.
## What Changed
- Added shared issue-reference parsing utilities and exported
reference-related types/constants.
- Added an `issue_reference_mentions` table, idempotent migration DDL,
schema exports, and database documentation.
- Added server-side issue reference services, route integration,
activity summaries, and a backfill command for existing issue content.
- Added UI reference pills, related-work panels, markdown/editor mention
handling, and issue detail/property rendering updates.
- Added focused shared, server, and UI tests for parsing, persistence,
display, and related-work behavior.
- Rebased `PAP-735-first-class-task-references` cleanly onto
`public-gh/master`; no `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes are included.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run packages/shared/src/issue-references.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-references-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRelatedWorkPanel.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx`
## Risks
- Medium risk because this adds a new issue-reference persistence path
that touches shared parsing, database schema, server routes, and UI
rendering.
- Migration risk is mitigated by `CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS`, guarded
foreign-key creation, and `CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS` statements so
users who have applied an older local version of the numbered migration
can re-run safely.
- UI risk is limited by focused component coverage, but reviewers should
still manually inspect issue detail pages containing ticket references
before merge.
> 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, tool-using shell workflow with
repository inspection, git rebase/push, typecheck, and focused Vitest
verification.
## 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: dotta <dotta@example.com>
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 each agent execution
window.
> - Long-running local agents can exhaust context or stop while still
holding useful next-step state.
> - Operators need that stop reason, next action, and continuation path
to be durable and visible.
> - This pull request adds run liveness metadata, continuation
summaries, and UI surfaces for issue run ledgers.
> - The benefit is that interrupted or long-running work can resume with
clearer context instead of losing the agent's last useful handoff.
## What Changed
- Added heartbeat-run liveness fields, continuation attempt tracking,
and an idempotent `0058` migration.
- Added server services and tests for run liveness, continuation
summaries, stop metadata, and activity backfill.
- Wired local and HTTP adapters to surface continuation/liveness context
through shared adapter utilities.
- Added shared constants, validators, and heartbeat types for liveness
continuation state.
- Added issue-detail UI surfaces for continuation handoffs and the run
ledger, with component tests.
- Updated agent runtime docs, heartbeat protocol docs, prompt guidance,
onboarding assets, and skills instructions to explain continuation
behavior.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by scoping document evidence by run,
excluding system continuation-summary documents from liveness evidence,
importing shared liveness types, surfacing hidden ledger run counts,
documenting bounded retry behavior, and moving run-ledger liveness
backfill off the request path.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/run-liveness.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/documents-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-continuation-summary.test.ts
server/src/services/heartbeat-stop-metadata.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueContinuationHandoff.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueDocumentsSection.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db build`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "treats a
plan document update"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "activity
service|treats a plan document update"`
- Remote PR checks on head `e53b1a1d`: `verify`, `e2e`, `policy`, and
Snyk all passed.
- Confirmed `public-gh/master` is an ancestor of this branch after
fetching `public-gh master`.
- Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the branch diff.
- Confirmed migration `0058_wealthy_starbolt.sql` is ordered after
`0057` and uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards for repeat application.
- Greptile inline review threads are resolved.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches heartbeat execution, liveness recovery,
activity rendering, issue routes, shared contracts, docs, and UI.
- Migration risk is mitigated by additive columns/indexes and idempotent
guards.
- Run-ledger liveness backfill is now asynchronous, so the first ledger
response can briefly show historical missing liveness until the
background backfill completes.
- UI screenshot coverage is not included in this packaging pass;
validation is currently through focused component tests.
> 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-5.4, local tool-use coding agent with terminal, git,
GitHub connector, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API 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 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
Screenshot note: no before/after screenshots were captured in this PR
packaging pass; the UI changes are covered by focused component tests
listed above.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle
semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep
regressions visible
> - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime
correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area
> - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused
issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch
overlapping issue APIs
> - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat,
telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch
> - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness
work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit
comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting
## What Changed
- Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review
stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded
execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and
blocked-to-todo wake resumption
- Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads,
compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and
capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces
- Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on
task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material
- Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster
route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation
from local state, and repo verification follow-ups
- Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small
follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were
dropped during branch reconstruction
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts`
- `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`,
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted
on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported
init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they
are noted as environment-limited
## Risks
- Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and
reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow
rather than isolated UI polish
- Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should
pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure
modes and not just reshaping harness behavior
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution enabled
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] 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
zach-hermes
Nicky Leach
Dotta
Dotta
dotta