## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The control plane must keep each active issue on a clear execution
or recovery path.
> - A missing issue disposition can require more than one bounded repair
attempt.
> - A server restart could lose that repair path or move source
ownership to the recovery owner.
> - A parked or expired retry could also make the user interface show a
false healthy state.
> - Concurrent recovery loops must not schedule the same repair attempt
twice.
> - This pull request keeps retry state durable, makes scheduling
atomic, and keeps source ownership stable.
> - The benefit is that recovery continues after a restart and operators
see the correct state.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A run that ended without a valid issue disposition could lose its repair
path after a server restart. Manager recovery could also change the
source owner. In addition, a parked or expired retry could make the
issue look healthy when no active work existed. Concurrent
reconciliation could also schedule the same repair attempt twice.
**Expected behavior**
Paperclip must keep bounded source and manager repair attempts across
restarts. Recovery ownership must stay separate from source issue
ownership. The server and user interface must report only a live retry
as active work. Each repair attempt must be scheduled at most once per
company.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start an agent run on an issue.
2. End the run without a valid issue disposition.
3. Let the first repair attempt schedule a retry.
4. Restart the server, let the retry time pass without a live run, or
start two reconciliation loops together.
5. Observe that the repair path can stop, the issue can show a false
healthy state, or duplicate retries can be created.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The problem existed on `master` before candidate head
`d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`.
**Deployment mode**
The problem affects self-hosted servers and local builds that use
automatic recovery.
## What Changed
- Persist bounded source-owner and manager repair lineages with stable
fingerprints and retry limits.
- Resume incomplete disposition repairs after a server restart.
- Keep recovery ownership separate from source issue ownership and
enforce source mutation authority.
- Project live retry evidence into issue and blocker summaries.
- Show recovery owner, return owner, attempt count, and retry state in
the board user interface.
- Treat expired or parked retries as attention states unless a queued or
running attempt exists.
- Atomically deduplicate disposition-repair wake requests with a
company-scoped partial unique index.
- Reuse the winning run when concurrent reconciliation loses the
uniqueness race, without duplicate scheduling activity.
- Honor disabled on-demand wake policy before recovery scheduling and
again before delayed retry promotion.
- Keep the new index migration safe for lagging seeded databases that
already contain the index.
- Add server and user interface tests for recovery, restart, ownership,
retry, concurrency, and blocker states.
- Update the implementation and execution semantics documents.
## Verification
- Focused server recovery and ownership suites: 282 tests passed on the
repaired base candidate.
- Focused user interface recovery suites: 128 tests passed on the
repaired base candidate.
- Atomic-deduplication schema and recovery suites: 111 tests passed on
the first Greptile repair.
- Recovery and scheduled-retry wake-policy suites: 126 tests passed at
`d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`.
- The exact lagging-source migration-order test passed after the index
migration became idempotent: 1 test passed and 62 unrelated tests were
skipped.
- `@paperclipai/db` and `@paperclipai/server` typechecks passed at the
current head.
- Migration generation and migration safety checks passed for migration
`0226_tan_colossus.sql`.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passed on the repaired base candidate.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the repaired base candidate.
- `pnpm build` passed on the repaired base candidate.
- `pnpm test:run` passed 4,540 tests on the repaired base candidate.
Four fixed-port cases met listeners that already existed on the host.
- The two unchanged fixed-port files passed in an isolated network
namespace: 129 tests passed and 27 tests were skipped.
- Independent Security and QA reviews approved
`63c0423aab54c66f2293a20b0fb3f3b013ee3ba8`; exact-head re-review is
required after automated checks settle on
`d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`.
## Risks
- Recovery orchestration affects issue liveness and ownership. The new
paths use bounded attempts, stable fingerprints, row locks, authority
checks, and database uniqueness.
- A conservative attention state can show more warnings when a scheduled
retry has no queued or running attempt. It does not hide stopped work.
- Migration `0226_tan_colossus.sql` creates a partial unique index on a
known-large table. Migrations run transactionally, so `CONCURRENTLY` is
unavailable. The matching disposition-repair key namespace is introduced
by this release, so deployed databases have no matching rows before the
index is added.
> 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 from the GPT-5 model family used agentic reasoning, tool
use, and code execution. The runtime did not expose the exact model ID
or context window.
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5 used a 1M context window, tool use, and code
execution for part of the user interface repair, as recorded in the
commit history.
## 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 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agents need scoped secret bindings to use external services safely.
> - Agents could not request an existing secret under a new config name
without an internal secret identifier.
> - Existing binding proposals were only visible in Settings and did not
create an issue-thread approval path.
> - A confirmation card could record acceptance without proving that the
binding was created.
> - This pull request extends the existing secret proposal system with
safe source references and governed issue-thread confirmation cards.
> - The benefit is a one-click flow that creates the binding or shows a
clear failure without exposing secret material.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related prerequisite: #11482.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: server REST APIs, shared interaction contracts, database
proposal schema, and issue-thread UI.
**Problem or motivation**
An agent can need an existing bound secret under a second config name.
The agent cannot safely discover the internal secret identifier. The
existing proposal is also easy for the operator to miss because it only
appears in Settings. A generic confirmation can record acceptance
without executing the binding.
**Proposed solution**
Let an agent create a binding proposal from one of its existing config
paths. Mint a server-owned, human-only confirmation card on the
checked-out issue. Recheck the operator's target-agent permission under
the proposal row lock. Execute the existing proposal transaction after
card acceptance. Store an `executed` or `failed` result on the card.
Render the complete lifecycle in the issue thread and attention
resolver.
**Alternatives considered**
A new alias subsystem would duplicate proposal quotas, expiry,
authorization, and binding synchronization. A text-only issue comment
would not provide a governed action or an execution result. An
agent-supplied card payload would permit metadata smuggling. This change
uses the existing proposal transaction and a server-owned payload
instead.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change extends the completed "Secrets Manager with per-agent
access" roadmap item. It preserves scoped bindings and audited
resolution. The required GitHub search found no other open duplicate
issue or pull request.
## What Changed
- Added safe source-config-path binding proposals and preserved
user-secret ownership checks.
- Added a proposal-to-interaction link and an idempotent database
migration.
- Minted human-only `request_confirmation` cards with server-owned
`secretProposal` metadata.
- Rejected agent-supplied governed metadata and agent addressees.
- Rechecked `agent_config:update` authority under the proposal lock
before execution.
- Recorded `executed` or `failed` results and posted a failure comment
when no binding was created.
- Settled failed accepted proposals atomically and mirrored rejection,
withdrawal, and expiry in both directions.
- Emitted `secret.binding.created` for new agent binding writes.
- Added a dedicated issue-thread card for pending, executed, failed,
rejected, withdrawn, and expired states.
- Showed only the source label, target agent, config path, skeptical
justification, expiry, and safe failure code.
- Replaced resolved attention-query entries immediately with the
stitched server result.
- Added focused server, database, UI, and state-transition tests.
- Added Storybook fixtures for every review state and documented the API
and agent behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/AttentionInteractionResolver.test.ts` — 58 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm build-storybook`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts` — 142
passed.
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run
src/company-secret-proposals-migration.test.ts --silent` — 1 passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run` — server 4,175 passed, UI 4,109 passed; the CLI
AWS-doctor case passes 8/8 with runtime-injected static AWS credential
variables unset.
- `pnpm build`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
## Risks
- Migration `0221` adds one nullable foreign key and one index. It uses
idempotent guards.
- The accept route performs a governed write after it records card
acceptance. A failed write is visible and settles the proposal as
rejected.
- Concurrent proposal and card resolution must use
proposal-before-interaction lock order. A race test covers direct
approval against card rejection.
- The new audit event increases activity rows for newly added agent
bindings. It does not include secret values or fingerprints.
- The card includes only safe proposal metadata. It does not include
secret value, fingerprint, version, or internal secret identifiers.
- The UI uses the stitched resolution result. Focused tests cover
immediate cache replacement and every terminal state.
> This work extends an existing completed roadmap capability. The GitHub
duplicate search returned no other open related work.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with model ID `gpt-5`. The runtime did not expose its
context-window size. Reasoning, repository tools, code execution,
database integration tests, UI rendering, and GitHub tools were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (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 task view shows operators why work cannot continue
> - The redesigned task thread now shows direct and ultimate blockers
> - But it does not show the ordered task queue while a blocker chain
has live work
> - This pull request adds a compact ordered live-work queue to the
redesigned thread
> - The benefit is that operators can see completed, running, and queued
dependencies without opening the larger legacy notice
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The redesigned task thread blocker summary is improved. The merged
predecessor is #11456.
**Current behavior**
The redesigned task thread shows compact direct and ultimate blocker
links. It does not show the ordered queue when the blocker tree has live
work. The legacy task view shows this queue in a larger notice.
**Proposed behavior**
Show a compact blue live-work queue at both ends of the redesigned task
thread. Order completed tasks first, then running tasks, then queued
tasks. Show a live terminal leaf as `Now running`. Return to the amber
blocker links when no live dependency remains.
**Reason and benefit**
Operators can see the active dependency order without leaving the
redesigned task view. The compact presentation preserves the new
thread's low-chrome layout.
**Breaking changes**
None. The change only adds UI for blocker data that the task view
already receives.
## What Changed
- Shared the live blocker ordering helper between the legacy notice and
the redesigned task thread.
- Added compact ordered dependency links at the top and bottom of the
redesigned thread.
- Added a separate `Now running` link for a live terminal blocker leaf.
- Preserved the compact amber blocker rows when live work is not
present.
- Added component tests and a Storybook state for the new presentation.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook`
- Captured and reviewed the new Storybook state in a headless browser.
## Risks
- Low risk. The queue appears only for blocked tasks whose blocker
attention state is `covered` and whose dependency set contains live
work.
- The API does not provide an explicit queue position. The UI preserves
the existing legacy ordering rule: completed, running, queued, then
numeric task identifier.
> 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. The runtime does not expose the exact snapshot or
context-window size. Reasoning, code execution, repository tools, and
browser automation were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [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 interactions give agents and people a structured decision
record.
> - Resolver routes used different authorization rules.
> - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with
normal issue access.
> - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction.
> - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy
evaluator.
> - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and
company isolation.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes: #8087
Refs: #7403
Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change
keeps human-only review as an explicit policy.
**What happened?**
Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still
required board access.
This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see
the same problem without board identity.
**Expected behavior**
Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract.
The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It
must also apply all normal governance controls.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent.
2. Resolve it with another authorized agent.
3. Observe the board-only denial.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The problem exists on `master` before this change.
**Deployment mode**
Local development with `pnpm dev`.
## What Changed
- Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`.
- Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind.
- Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task
watchdog scope.
- Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit.
- Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction
data.
- Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board
UI.
- Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression
fixtures.
- Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior.
- Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior
runs.
## Product Rules
- An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the
next action.
- `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond.
- `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator.
- `human_only` requires an authorized person.
- A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the
audience.
- These controls cannot widen the audience.
- A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent.
- A task watchdog does not receive board authority.
- An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue
action limit.
- Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions.
- The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts`
- The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice.
- The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing
provenance.
- The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks.
- The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected.
- Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments.
## Risks
- New interaction writes use `anyone` by default.
- Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need
stricter review.
- Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human
restrictions.
- Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery.
- Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit.
- The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind.
- Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these
rules.
> This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in
`ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID
or context window.
The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, and test
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked public issues or described the issue with the
required labels
- [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation
- [x] I have considered and documented the risks
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments
- [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
> - When an agent run ends without a recorded disposition, Paperclip
raises a "missing disposition" handoff so the work does not stall
silently
> - The issue page shows that handoff as an amber alarm: "This task
still needs a next step."
> - The server tells the UI whether the issue has a live continuation,
and an earlier change used that flag to hide the alarm while a
correction run is active
> - Hiding it removed the false alarm but replaced it with nothing, so a
reader cannot tell "nothing is wrong" from "nothing is tracked"
> - This pull request puts a quiet informational line where the alarm
was, and links the live run
> - The benefit is that the page stays honest in both states: it is calm
while an agent works, and it is loud only when the issue is really stuck
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this gap. Description follows
`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml`:
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The missing-disposition handoff notice on the issue page. It is the
amber banner that reads "This task still needs a next step."
**Subsystem affected**
Web UI — `ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.tsx`.
**Current behavior**
An issue with an outstanding missing-disposition handoff shows nothing
at all in the blocked-notice slot while a correction run is live.
`IssueBlockedNotice` calls `isSuccessfulRunHandoffRequired()`. That
helper returns `false` when `successfulRunHandoff.hasLiveContinuation`
is set. The component then renders no handoff content. Two tests
asserted the empty render.
**Proposed behavior**
The page states, quietly, that a correction run is in progress. It also
states that the alarm returns if the run stops without choosing a next
step. The reader can open the live run from that line. The amber alarm
does not change when no run is live.
**Reason and benefit**
Silence and "healthy" look the same. A user who saw the alarm earlier
cannot tell whether the handoff was resolved, whether the alert was
withdrawn, or whether an agent is working on it now. One muted line
removes that ambiguity. It also keeps the loud state meaningful, because
the alarm now appears only when the issue is really stuck.
**Breaking changes**
None. The change is presentational and adds no API or data-shape change.
## What Changed
- Added `SuccessfulRunHandoffInFlightNotice` to
`ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.tsx`. It renders a muted row with
a pulsing live dot and this copy: "A correction run is in progress — the
agent is working. This alert returns if the run stops without choosing a
next step."
- The notice links the live run when the server sends `liveRunId` and
the handoff has an `assigneeAgentId`. It shows the short run id as plain
text when no agent id is available, and it shows no run reference when
`liveRunId` is absent.
- Liveness reads either the server `hasLiveContinuation` flag or the
fresher client `liveIssueIds` set. This matches the rule that already
suppressed the alarm.
- The amber alarm is unchanged when no live continuation exists. The
unpromoted scheduled-retry carve-out still shows the alarm, so the
"Retry now" control stays reachable.
- The calm line also renders above the blocker notice when an issue has
blockers and a live run at the same time.
- Storybook: added `InFlightNotice` and `LivenessComparison` stories to
`ui/storybook/stories/successful-run-handoff.stories.tsx`, and removed a
duplicated panel from the overview story.
- Tests: the two cases that asserted an empty render now assert the calm
line. New cases cover a missing `liveRunId`, a missing agent id, a
handoff that is not required, and the two "alarm is unchanged" guards.
## Verification
Run the component and helper suites from `ui/`:
```
cd ui && NODE_ENV=test npx vitest run \
src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx \
src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx \
src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx \
src/lib/successful-run-handoff.test.ts
```
Result: 4 files, 111 tests, all pass.
Also run:
- `cd ui && npx tsc -b --force` — clean.
- `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` — all gates clean.
Manual check in Storybook (`pnpm --dir ui storybook`), story
`Paperclip/Successful Run Handoff → Liveness Comparison`:
- The alarm panel keeps its 4 remediation bullets, its amber surface,
and its run chips.
- The calm panel shows one 39 px muted row, no bullets, and a working
link to the live run.
- Measured contrast of the calm text against its rendered surface:
4.58:1 in light mode and 6.52:1 in dark mode. Both pass WCAG AA for
normal text.
## Risks
Low risk. The change is limited to one presentational component and its
stories. It adds a render path where the component previously returned
`null`, so a surface that expected an empty render now shows one muted
row. No server, API, or data-shape change. The amber alarm path and the
scheduled-retry carve-out are covered by tests that assert the calm line
does not appear.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-5[1m]`, 1M context
window, extended thinking, with tool use and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] 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
Co-authored-by: ClaudeCoder <claudecoder@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip helps operators supervise agent work through tasks and
task threads.
> - The redesigned task thread shows the current work and its state.
> - A blocked task did not show the dependency that prevented progress.
> - Operators had to leave the thread to find the direct and final
blockers.
> - This pull request adds compact blocker links at the top and bottom
of the task thread.
> - The benefit is that operators can identify and open the relevant
tasks without adding a large notice to the thread.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The redesigned task thread did not show which task directly blocked the
current task or which task ultimately blocked its dependency chain.
**Subsystem affected**
`server/`, `packages/shared/`, and `ui/` task-blocker presentation.
**Current behavior**
A blocked task can open in the redesigned thread without a visible
dependency link at the top or bottom of the conversation.
**Proposed behavior**
Show one compact amber row for the direct blocker. Show a second row for
the selected final blocker when one exists. Render the rows at both ends
of the thread.
**Reason and benefit**
Operators can see the reason for the blocked state and open the relevant
task from the conversation. The compact rows preserve thread density.
**Breaking changes**
None. The new blocker-attention fields are optional. Existing clients
remain compatible.
## What Changed
- Added a compact task-chat component for direct and selected final
blocker links.
- Added the blocker rows to the top and bottom of populated and empty
task threads.
- Added link-ready blocker-attention details so an intermediate selected
task stays on its correct direct chain.
- Included blocker-link changes in the thread content key so pinned
threads follow a newly added bottom row.
- Added component, scrolling, server contract, and Storybook coverage
for the new states.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts` (38 tests passed)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
## Risks
- Low risk. The rows only render while the task status is `blocked` and
an unresolved blocker is available.
- Long titles are truncated to keep each blocker on one line. The full
task label remains available in the link title.
- Older server payloads keep the original leaf-selection behavior
because the new sampled details are 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 with GPT-5. The run used tool-enabled reasoning and code
execution. The context-window size was not exposed to the run.
## 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 agent configuration UI controls each agent and its allowed
secrets.
> - The environment variable editor already has a secret selector with
search and folder navigation.
> - The secret access editor used a basic list and made large secret
stores hard to use.
> - The secret access controls also occupied the main Configuration tab.
> - This pull request reuses the rich selector and moves secret access
to a dedicated Secrets tab.
> - The benefit is one consistent secret selection workflow with clearer
agent configuration navigation.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The agent detail configuration view and its secret access editor.
**Subsystem affected**
`ui/` — React and Vite board UI.
**Current behavior**
The secret access editor uses a basic select control. It does not
provide the search and folder navigation available in the environment
variable editor. The editor also appears inside the Configuration tab.
**Proposed behavior**
The secret access editor uses the shared secret picker. Users can search
secrets and browse slash-delimited folders. Agent details provide a
dedicated Secrets tab for this editor.
**Reason and benefit**
Large secret stores are slow to scan in a flat list. Reusing one
selector reduces UI differences and makes scoped secret access easier to
manage.
**Breaking changes**
None. The API and saved secret access data do not change.
## What Changed
- Reused the environment variable secret picker in the agent secret
access editor.
- Preserved secret version selection and the create-secret action,
including nested-popover focus handling.
- Added a route-backed Secrets tab to agent details and removed secret
access controls from Configuration.
- Guarded unsaved configuration across tab, link, browser-history, and
action-triggered navigation.
- Rechecked dirty state when navigation-producing agent actions finish,
covering edits made while a request is pending.
- Added component, page, and Storybook coverage for the workflow.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/AgentActionButtons.test.tsx
src/components/AgentConfigForm.render.test.tsx
src/components/AgentSecretAccessEditor.test.tsx
src/components/environment-variables-editor/EnvironmentVariablesEditor.test.tsx
src/pages/AgentDetail.progress.test.ts` — 82 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- All GitHub PR checks passed on `5209c5b787`, including build, canary,
general and serialized tests, and all three e2e shards.
- Greptile completed at 5/5 with zero unresolved review threads.
## Risks
- Low risk. The API and persisted binding format are unchanged; this
changes agent configuration navigation and secret selection UI.
- Dirty-state guards now cover direct navigation, Back/Forward history,
and navigation-producing agent actions, including pending-request races.
- Tests cover tab separation, secret access updates, search, folder
navigation, focus restoration, and navigation rejection.
- No documentation change is required because commands, contracts, and
setup steps do not change.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. This runtime did not expose a more specific
model ID or context window. The model used agentic reasoning, repository
tools, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Operators use task properties to inspect and change task
relationships.
> - A blocked-by chip linked directly to the blocking task.
> - Its remove control appeared only on hover, so touch users could not
reach it.
> - This pull request opens a small action menu when a user taps the
chip on mobile.
> - The menu lets the user visit the task or start the existing
blocker-removal confirmation.
> - The benefit is that touch users can manage blockers without changing
the fast desktop flow.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
On a phone-width layout, a tap on a blocked-by chip opened the blocking
task immediately. The remove control appeared only on hover, so a touch
user could not remove the blocker.
**Expected behavior**
A tap on a blocked-by chip on mobile opens a menu. The menu offers
`Visit task` and `Remove blocker` actions.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a task that has a blocker.
2. Use a viewport below the mobile breakpoint.
3. Open the task properties.
4. Tap the blocked-by chip.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on `e5a7fd7038` from `master`.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source with the local development workflow.
## What Changed
- Added a mobile-only action menu to blocked-by chips.
- Kept the direct task link and hover/focus remove control on desktop.
- Reused the existing removal confirmation before the relation update.
- Added focused regression coverage for the mobile visit and remove
choices.
- Added a phone-width Storybook state with the action menu open.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm build-storybook`
- Opened the new Storybook state in Playwright Chromium with a Pixel 5
viewport. Confirmed that both actions are visible and fit in the
viewport.
## Risks
- Low risk. The behavior change is limited to the existing mobile
breakpoint.
- Desktop navigation and blocker removal keep their current behavior.
- The menu uses the shared dropdown and dialog primitives.
> 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-5.6-sol`, xhigh reasoning. The Codex CLI managed the
context window for this run. The model used repository tools, code
execution, tests, and browser automation.
## 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 Decisions desk shows work that needs an operator response.
> - It also exposed decision-training actions and a separate training
library.
> - Paperclip does not plan to use these training surfaces now.
> - Keeping inactive controls makes the Decisions workflow harder to
scan.
> - This pull request removes the training UI and keeps the backend
snapshot contract unchanged.
> - The benefit is a smaller and clearer Decisions workflow without a
data migration.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The Decisions desk currently exposes training controls, training state,
and a separate training library route.
**Subsystem affected**
`ui/` — React and Vite board UI.
**Current behavior**
Operators can open a training library from the Decisions toolbar. They
can also mark a decision for training from rows and inspect the result
in a drawer.
**Proposed behavior**
Remove the training controls, badges, drawer, library pages, and routes
from the Decisions UI. Keep the server APIs and stored training examples
unchanged.
**Reason and benefit**
The product does not plan to use decision training now. Removing the
unused surfaces reduces Decisions UI noise and avoids presenting a
workflow that operators should not use.
**Breaking changes**
The `/decisions/training` UI routes are no longer registered. Existing
server endpoints and stored decision-training data remain compatible.
## What Changed
- Removed decision-training controls and state from Decisions toolbars,
rows, queue pages, and shelves.
- Removed the training drawer, library, inspector, API client, helpers,
query keys, and routes.
- Added route and row regressions that assert training UI does not
return.
- Updated the Decisions Storybook description to match the available
controls.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/App.test.tsx
ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx` — 32 tests passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run` — server and UI partitions passed. The CLI partition
had one environment-only failure because this agent runtime injects
static AWS credentials. The exact CLI file passed all 8 tests when those
credential variables were unset.
- Searched `ui/src` and `ui/storybook` for the removed training routes,
drawer, library, badges, and actions. Only negative regression
assertions remain.
## Risks
- Low implementation risk. This change deletes UI-only entry points and
does not change the database or server APIs.
- Saved training-page URLs no longer render a board route. This is the
intended 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, model `gpt-5.6-sol`, with `xhigh` reasoning. The runtime
did not expose the context-window size. The agent used repository tools,
shell execution, and automated tests.
## 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>
This reverts commit 11e56654f8.
#10786 ported the onboarding flow from a standalone prototype and
repointed `/onboarding` at the new `CloudOnboardingFlow`, deleting the
existing `OnboardingWizard.tsx` in the process. The ported flow is not
ready to be the shipping onboarding experience: it landed as a single
large port rather than an incremental migration, it pulled `motion`,
`three` and `@types/three` onto the UI dependency list for prototype
visuals, and it deleted the wizard that four in-flight pull requests
(#9900, #9501, #8982 and one more) were building on — those went
CONFLICTING the moment the file disappeared.
Rather than keep the half-migrated state on master while that is sorted
out, back the port out whole and re-land it incrementally. This restores
`OnboardingWizard.tsx` and the previous versions of the four e2e specs,
drops the `onboarding-preview.html` Vite entry, the DesignGuide
onboarding section and the `data-viz-misc` storybook story, and removes
the three prototype dependencies from `ui/package.json`.
This is an exact mechanical inverse of the squash commit — 41 files,
+2089/-3647, no hand edits. Reverting this commit restores all 41 files
byte for byte, so the port is recoverable in full when it is ready.
`pnpm-lock.yaml` is deliberately not touched. #10786 never updated it;
bot commit 4683f26c9 (#11036) added the `motion`/`three` entries
afterwards, so the lockfile is now ahead of the manifest. CI owns
lockfile updates (`.github/workflows/pr.yml`) and the policy job
regenerates it from the changed manifest.
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Apps subsystem connects company tools through governed provider
connections.
> - A company can need more than one account for the same provider.
> - The current database constraint and Apps flow assume one named
connection per company.
> - New quarantined actions also need an explicit review decision before
activation.
> - This pull request supports multiple provider connections and
complete action review decisions.
> - The benefit is safer access control and a clear multi-account Apps
workflow.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: #11040
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting. This change affects the Apps UI, the tool access API, the
shared request contract, and the database schema.
**Problem or motivation**
The connection name constraint prevents a company from keeping more than
one connection for a provider. The Apps UI also reuses an existing OAuth
connection when a user asks to connect another account. Action review
can enable selected entries without recording a decision for every
quarantined action.
**Proposed solution**
Remove the company and connection name uniqueness constraint. Let users
open, count, edit, and create multiple provider connections. Require the
finish request to cover every quarantined action exactly once before the
server activates reviewed entries.
**Alternatives considered**
The UI could generate unique internal names and keep the database
constraint. This would preserve a one-connection assumption in the data
model and would make display names part of identity. The server could
also infer review decisions from enabled actions. This would not
distinguish a reviewed disabled action from an action that the user did
not review.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change extends the completed MCP Tool Gateway and Apps milestone.
It also supports the Connected Apps roadmap item. It follows the
navigation and connection management work in #11040.
## What Changed
- Remove the company-scoped connection name uniqueness index with an
ordered and idempotent migration.
- Add a reviewed action list to the finish-app contract and reject
incomplete or duplicate review decisions.
- Activate reviewed entries and keep unreviewed quarantined entries
blocked.
- Enable a completed connection and preserve the company and connection
scope in all updates.
- Show provider connection counts and open the provider setup page from
Browse.
- Let users edit existing connections or connect another account without
reusing an active OAuth connection.
- Update focused server and UI coverage for multiple connections and
action review.
## Verification
- Ran the focused Apps UI suite. All 116 tests passed in 11 files.
- Ran the focused server and CLI suite. All 276 tests passed in 3 files.
- Ran `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`. The migration
safety check passed.
- Ran `pnpm -r typecheck`. All projects passed.
- Ran `pnpm build`. All projects built successfully.
- Ran `pnpm test:run`. It passed 3,735 tests and skipped 4 tests. One
worktree-safety assertion failed because the execution workspace reloads
its worktree marker. The same test passed with an isolated non-worktree
marker.
- Ran `pnpm check:token-gates`. It reports 12 existing violations in the
unchanged `PaperclipOrbit3D.tsx` file from the target branch.
- Started the six affected Playwright specifications. Chromium could not
start because the host does not provide `libatk-1.0.so.0`. The GitHub
e2e jobs will verify these specifications.
- GitHub Actions passed every final-head CI gate, including all three
e2e shards and the aggregate `e2e` and `verify` jobs.
- Greptile reviewed final commit `9af9200426` at 5/5 with zero review
threads.
## Risks
- Removing the name uniqueness index permits duplicate display names.
Stable connection IDs and UIDs remain unique within a company.
- The finish-app endpoint accepts the new review field as optional for
backward compatibility. When clients send it, the server requires a
complete decision for all quarantined actions.
- Multiple OAuth connections depend on the explicit new-connection route
flag. Focused tests cover active and draft connection reuse.
- The migration is ordered after migration 0210. Its `DROP INDEX IF
EXISTS` statement is safe to repeat.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with the `gpt-5.6-sol` model assisted this change. The
agent used repository tools, code execution, test execution, and agentic
reasoning. The Codex runtime manages the context window.
## 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
> - First-run onboarding is the subsystem that turns a brand-new install
into a working company: it creates the company, its goal, a lead agent,
and that agent's first task
> - The existing `OnboardingWizard` carried all of that wiring
correctly, but its UI had drifted from the current design direction, and
a separate design prototype (`paperclip-onboard`) existed as a
standalone visual mock with no backend
> - Porting the prototype's *logic* would have thrown away working,
well-tested backend orchestration; leaving the two apart meant the
design never shipped
> - Separately, cloud and local (self-hosted) installs need meaningfully
different first runs — local has no sign-in and must let the user pick a
locally-installed CLI adapter — so a single linear wizard could not
serve both
> - This pull request rebuilds the presentational layer from the
prototype on top of the existing backend orchestration, and splits it
into two thin flow containers over a shared core
> - The benefit is that the shipped onboarding matches the intended
design, cloud and local can diverge without duplicating logic, and each
can later ship to a different app version while sharing one set of step
components
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue — describing inline (feature request).
**What problem does this solve?**
Onboarding is the first thing a new user sees, and the shipped wizard
had drifted from the current design. In parallel, cloud and local
installs need different first-run paths: local has no hosted sign-in,
and its agent runs on a CLI adapter installed on the user's machine,
which the cloud path never has to ask about. There was no way to express
that difference without either forking the whole wizard or bolting
conditionals onto a single linear flow.
**Proposed solution**
Extract the onboarding step views and shell into a shared core, then
compose two thin flow containers (cloud and local) over it. Keep all
backend orchestration in the existing `useOnboardingFlow` hook so no
working logic is rewritten.
**Alternatives considered**
- *Single flow with a `variant` prop* — most DRY, but the two flows are
intended to ship on different app versions, and a shared file would have
to be split later anyway.
- *Two fully independent copies* — simplest per-flow, but every shared
refinement (spacing, motion, copy) would have to be made twice and would
drift.
## What Changed
- **Shared core** under `ui/src/components/onboarding/`:
`OnboardingScaffold` owns the full-screen shell and the single
`AnimatePresence` step crossfade, so both flows transition identically;
step views (Start / Company / Agent / Task), `FooterNav`, `AgentPreview`
and the motion constants are extracted for reuse.
- **`CloudOnboardingFlow`** — `start → company → agent → task`; mounted
in the real app via `OnboardingWizardVariant`. Behaviour matches the
retired wizard, including `previewMock` and the existing-company ("add
an agent") entry point.
- **`LocalOnboardingFlow`** — skips sign-in and adds an optional email
ask (with a privacy assurance), a local model/adapter step that hires
with `requireEnvProbe: true`, and a "star us on GitHub" interstitial
before completing. **Harness-only for now** — the real app still mounts
the cloud flow.
- **Deleted `OnboardingWizard.tsx`** (1,786 lines); updated its
Storybook stories and the `OnboardingWizardVariant` test to the new
components.
- **Orbiting 3D paperclip backdrop** behind the auth and welcome screens
(`three`), code-split so it only downloads on those screens; honours
`prefers-reduced-motion` and disposes its GL context on unmount.
- **`motion`** added for step transitions and the agent-capsule
choreography.
- Visual values routed through design tokens per `DESIGN.md`; `Stepper`
generalized to take a step total (backward compatible); `/design-guide`
page and the component index updated.
- **Standalone preview harness** (`ui/onboarding-preview.html`) with
`?flow=` and `?step=` for backend-free review, wired as a second Vite
rollup input.
- **Adapter env probe bound to the adapter it ran against.**
`hireLeadAgent` reused `adapterEnvResult` for any adapter, so when a
hire failed and the user picked a *different* local adapter and retried,
the previous adapter's verdict satisfied the `requireEnvProbe` guard
while the hire posted the new adapter's config — hiring it unprobed. The
cache is now keyed on the adapter type plus the exact config posted to
the test endpoint, the config is built once and shared by probe and
hire, a failed probe clears the cache, and `clearAdapterEnvResult()`
(called on adapter change) stops the step displaying a stale verdict.
Cloud is unaffected — it hires with `requireEnvProbe: false`. Reported
by Greptile.
- **E2E specs re-pointed at the new flow.** Four specs still drove the
deleted wizard (`onboarding`, `conference-room-typing-intro`,
`planning-mode-visual-verification`, `nux-phase4-screenshots`) and
failed with `element(s) not found` on `"Name your company"` /
`input[placeholder="Acme Corp"]`. Rather than repeat the new drive
sequence four times, `tests/e2e/onboarding-flow.ts` adds one driver per
step (`startCloudOnboarding`, `completeCompanyStep`,
`completeAgentStep`, `completeTaskStep`, `completeCloudOnboarding`) and
the specs import it, so the next flow change touches a single file. Two
now-dead `**/test-environment` route stubs went with it — the cloud flow
hires with `requireEnvProbe: false`, so that probe never fires.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean.
- `npx vitest run` over the onboarding suites
(`OnboardingWizardVariant`, `AgentCapsule`, `onboarding-launch`,
`onboarding-goal`, `onboarding-route`, `onboarding-adapter-config`) — 33
tests pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — succeeds; the three.js chunk
splits out separately (522 kB raw / 133 kB gzip) rather than entering
the main bundle.
- Both flows driven end-to-end in the preview harness in `previewMock`
(no database writes), plus the cloud flow rendered in the real
authenticated app at `/onboarding` to confirm the mount swap.
- The four re-pointed e2e specs pass locally against the new flow.
- New `ui/src/hooks/useOnboardingFlow.test.tsx` — 4 cases pinning the
adapter-probe cache (switch-adapter retry, cold path, explicit clear,
and the cloud flow's `requireEnvProbe: false`). Verified non-vacuous:
the switch-adapter case fails against the pre-fix code.
- Rebased onto current `master`; `pnpm-lock.yaml` is deliberately
**not** committed — `.github/workflows/pr.yml` regenerates it when a
manifest changes and shares it with downstream jobs as the `pr-lockfile`
artifact.
## Risks
- **Deleting `OnboardingWizard.tsx` is the one change that alters
existing app behaviour.** The cloud flow is intended to be
behaviour-equivalent, and its entry points are covered by the updated
`OnboardingWizardVariant` test, but this is the area to review most
closely.
- **Conflict risk with open PRs that touch the old wizard**: #9900,
#9501, #8982 and #6636 all modify
`ui/src/components/OnboardingWizard.tsx`, which this PR removes.
Whichever lands second will need its change re-applied to the new step
components. Flagging so ordering can be decided deliberately.
- **New dependencies**: `motion` and `three` (+ `@types/three`). `three`
is large, so it is lazily imported and code-split — it does not affect
the main bundle. Both are MIT.
- The **local flow is not reachable in the app** yet (harness/canary
only), so it carries no runtime risk today; wiring it up is a follow-up.
- The auth screens remain **presentational only** — they are not wired
to real auth, unchanged from before this PR.
- **Pre-existing, not introduced here:** `OnboardingWizardVariant`
renders outside `<Routes>` in `App.tsx`, so its `useParams()` never
resolves `:companyPrefix` and `/{prefix}/onboarding` opens the welcome
screen instead of jumping to the agent step. `master` has the identical
structure, so this PR faithfully ports existing behaviour; the working
"add an agent" entry is the launcher card behind the overlay, which is
what the screenshot spec drives. Worth a separate fix.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`) via Claude Code, with extended thinking
and tool use (repo search/edit, local test + build execution, and
browser-driven visual verification of the rendered flows). Portions of
the session also ran on `claude-opus-4-8` and `claude-fable-5`.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents can select company skills and synchronize them to adapter
runtimes
> - The skill sync API replaced the complete selection without an
explicit destructive choice
> - Company package import also replaced conflicting skills by default
> - These defaults could remove operator edits during setup and import
reruns
> - This pull request adds explicit assignment merge modes and safe
package conflict handling
> - The benefit is that reruns preserve operator work unless the caller
explicitly requests replacement
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This change improves agent skill synchronization and company package
import.
**Subsystem affected**
This is a cross-cutting change across the shared contracts, server, CLI,
and UI.
**Current behavior**
Agent skill synchronization replaces the full desired skill set from a
modeless request. Package import replaces a conflicting skill when the
caller does not select a conflict mode.
**Proposed behavior**
Agent skill synchronization requires `add`, `remove`, or `replace`.
Package import skips conflicts by default. Each imported skill reports
whether it was created, renamed, replaced, or skipped.
**Reason and benefit**
Setup and import reruns must preserve operator edits by default.
Explicit destructive modes make data loss less likely and make each
outcome inspectable.
**Breaking changes**
Callers of the agent skill sync API must now send `mode`. Callers that
need the former behavior must send `replace`. Package import now uses
`skip` when `onConflict` is absent.
## What Changed
- Added required `add`, `remove`, and `replace` modes to the shared
agent skill sync contract.
- Added actionable `422` validation for missing or invalid modes.
- Updated first-party UI and CLI callers with explicit modes.
- Changed package skill conflict handling to use `skip` by default.
- Kept plugin-owned and built-in stock skill imports on explicit
`replace`.
- Added created, renamed, replaced, and skipped results to company
imports.
- Added regression coverage for merge modes and package conflict
outcomes.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm test:run:serialized` (128 suites passed)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test` (20 tests passed)
- Focused agent skill route, company skill service, portability, CLI,
and UI tests passed.
- GitHub CI passed build, typecheck, canary, all general and serialized
test shards, all browser shards, policy, security, and final
verification on commit `2cfbb3e4c5`.
- Greptile reviewed the latest commit at 5/5 with zero unresolved
threads.
## Risks
- This change intentionally rejects modeless agent skill sync requests.
- The safe package default can leave an existing skill unchanged where
the old default overwrote it.
- All first-party callers now select a mode. Regression tests cover each
outcome.
> 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-5.6-sol` through Codex. The runtime used agentic
reasoning, tool use, code execution, and repository editing. The runtime
did not expose the context window size.
## 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.
> - Apps give agents governed access to external tools.
> - The Apps gallery lists Notion, but the server required manually
configured OAuth credentials.
> - Notion's hosted MCP server supports OAuth discovery and dynamic
client registration.
> - Notion also requires HTTPS or a loopback HTTP redirect URI.
> - This pull request adds a direct Notion MCP OAuth path with PKCE and
reusable dynamic clients.
> - It also adds the current Apps UI states for connect and
reauthorization.
> - The benefit is a secure Notion connection with no manual client
credential setup.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The Apps gallery, Apps connect route, OAuth token lifecycle, and managed
MCP gateway.
**Subsystem affected**
`server/`, `packages/shared/`, `scripts/`, and `ui/`.
**Current behavior**
The Notion gallery cards are disabled. The server uses the classic
Notion OAuth endpoints and requires operator-supplied client
credentials. It does not register an OAuth client from provider
metadata. Concurrent refreshes can also replay a rotating refresh token.
**Proposed behavior**
Enable the Notion Apps flow. Discover OAuth metadata from
`https://mcp.notion.com/mcp`. Register and reuse a public RFC 7591
client with PKCE. Require HTTPS or loopback HTTP callbacks. Serialize
refreshes, store each rotated refresh token before the new access token
can be used, and show a reconnect state for `invalid_grant`.
**Reason and benefit**
Operators can connect the built-in Notion MCP app without creating or
copying OAuth credentials. Paperclip keeps dynamic clients and rotating
tokens in the company secret store.
**Breaking changes**
None. Explicit environment client credentials still take priority.
Existing Slack and Linear OAuth endpoint hints remain unchanged. Other
OAuth apps remain disabled unless they are allowlisted.
**Additional context**
PR #10910 is a related, broader Connections v3 wizard replacement. This
PR is the focused current Apps flow. The MCP Tool Gateway and Connected
Apps items in `ROADMAP.md` cover this planned capability.
## What Changed
- Classify all 20 reviewed Notion MCP tools with provider-scoped read
and write defaults.
- Require approval for selected Notion mutations, including move,
duplicate, and convert actions that generic verb matching missed.
- Preserve company-scoped connection and catalog resolution for Notion
profiles and policies.
- Add RFC 7591 dynamic client registration with
`token_endpoint_auth_method=none` and mandatory PKCE.
- Store the dynamic client ID on the connection and store any returned
client secret in the company secret store.
- Reuse the registered client for later connects and keep explicit
environment credentials as the first choice.
- Discover protected-resource and authorization-server metadata from the
Notion MCP endpoint.
- Add `redirectConstraints: "https-or-loopback-http"` to the generated
Notion app definition and shared contract.
- Reject non-loopback plain HTTP callbacks before network access with a
TLS setup error.
- Serialize client registration and token refresh operations within the
server process.
- Store a rotated refresh token before publishing the refreshed access
token.
- Treat `invalid_grant` as terminal and move the connection to a clear
reauthorization state.
- Add focused coverage for registration reuse, callback constraints,
refresh rotation, and terminal grants.
- Enable the Notion Apps route and add connect, redirect, success,
error, and reconnect UI states.
- Keep non-allowlisted OAuth apps blocked and cover the UI policy with
regression tests.
## Verification
- The focused Notion policy integration test passed with embedded
PostgreSQL.
- The focused 20-tool classification test passed.
- The server typecheck passed on the governance head.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the rebased head.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the
security follow-up.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts
-t \u0027DCR|refresh tokens|invalid_grant|abandoned lease\u0027` passed
10 focused security tests.
- `pnpm build` passed on the rebased head.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts
-t 'OAuth|oauth'` passed 14 tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts`
passed 5 tests.
- The complete server group passed 3,686 tests with 4 skipped.
- The complete UI group passed 3,656 tests.
- The full local runner found one environment-only CLI failure because
this agent runtime injects static AWS credentials into a test that
expects `AWS_PROFILE` only. `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u
AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` passed all 8 tests.
- The prior UI verification passed 55 focused tests, `pnpm
check:token-gates`, the Storybook build, and review of six 1440 x 1000
screenshots.
- OAuth request sequence: protected-resource metadata `GET
https://mcp.notion.com/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp`;
authorization metadata `GET
https://mcp.notion.com/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server`; dynamic
registration `POST https://mcp.notion.com/register`; authorization `GET
https://mcp.notion.com/authorize`; token exchange and refresh `POST
https://mcp.notion.com/token`; MCP traffic `POST
https://mcp.notion.com/mcp`.
- The live metadata and registration probe confirmed that Notion accepts
HTTPS and loopback HTTP redirects. It rejects a plain HTTP private
hostname.
- A later QA task owns the full browser consent and managed gateway
tool-list dry run against a configured HTTPS deployment.
## Risks
- Notion can add tools. Unrecognized names use the generic classifier,
and new or changed risky tools stay quarantined after connection
activation.
- A deployment that uses a private non-loopback hostname must configure
HTTPS before it can connect Notion.
- Dynamic registration creates a provider-side client. Paperclip reuses
it because registration does not provide a standard delete operation.
- Refresh coordination uses a database CAS lease across service
instances. An unclean crash leaves an uncertain lease and requires
reconnect instead of risking refresh-token replay.
- The current Apps surface overlaps with PR #10910. Merge order can
require a small conflict resolution if that PR lands first.
> 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 on a GPT-5 runtime. The exact deployment ID and context
window are not exposed. The runtime used reasoning, repository tools,
code execution, and network tools.
## 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 Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Issues use `in_review` to request a final decision from an
authorized writer
> - The server rejected an assignee agent that tried to close its own
review, even when the issue had no independent-review rule
> - This rejection stopped the default agent workflow and did not
represent the configured execution-stage rules
> - Paperclip needs an open default and explicit issue-level constraints
for teams that require an independent or human verdict
> - This pull request removes the unconditional rejection and adds
`anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only` review policies
> - The benefit is a working default path with opt-in, authenticated
verdict controls
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10635, #4429, and #10671.
The related public work covers execution-stage independence,
self-approval fallback behavior, and durable review paths. This change
is distinct. It controls who can resolve an issue review verdict. It
keeps configured execution stages active.
## What Changed
- Added a nullable `review_policy` issue column. Null has the same
meaning as `anyone`. The migration does not backfill existing issues.
- Added shared create, update, response, and compact issue contracts for
`anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`.
- Removed the unconditional agent self-approval rejection for
`in_review` issues.
- Added one reusable verdict-actor check for terminal status changes and
pending interaction accept or reject actions.
- Used the authenticated principal type for `human_only`. Agent keys and
run tokens remain agent principals.
- Used the latest transition into `in_review` to identify the requester
for `not_creator`.
- Added actionable 403 responses that name the policy, the allowed
actor, and the next step.
- Kept the configured execution-stage transition and signoff behavior.
- Added focused contract, helper, status-route, interaction-route, and
execution-stage regression tests.
- Updated the implementation specification for the new issue field.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts
--reporter=dot` passed: 42 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passed, including migration
numbering and safety checks.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` passed across server, CLI, plugin
SDK/examples, plugin wiki, and UI.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed.
- SecurityEngineer review approved the authenticated-principal checks
and accepted policy-relaxation tradeoff with no required changes.
- Greptile reviewed the latest head at 5/5 with zero inline comments or
follow-ups.
- The latest-head GitHub rollup passed build, typecheck,
server/workspace tests, serialized suites, canary, e2e, and external
security checks.
## Risks
- The migration adds one nullable text column. It has no default and no
backfill.
- `not_creator` reads the latest recorded transition into `in_review`.
It denies the verdict when it cannot identify the requester.
- Agents can change or relax `reviewPolicy` when they have issue write
access. This is intentional for this issue-level control.
- Null and `anyone` do not add a database query to the verdict path.
- Configured execution-stage checks still run after the issue-level
policy check.
> This work aligns with the completed "Agent Reviews and Approvals" and
"Enforced Outcomes" roadmap items. It does not add a new roadmap
capability.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size
are not exposed to the agent. The run used reasoning, repository tools,
code execution, and GitHub CLI 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 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 separates workspace provisioning lifecycle from whether
the work was actually delivered.
> - Git ancestry alone cannot recognize squash merges or deliveries into
a branch other than the workspace base.
> - A merged pull request linked from a terminal issue is stronger
delivery evidence for those cases.
> - The read contract should expose that evidence without changing
persisted workspace schema.
> - Cleanup must remain conservative: terminal descendants, delivered
work, and no active run checkout are all required.
> - Reusing the existing cleanup primitives keeps service shutdown,
lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival behavior consistent.
> - Focused regression coverage locks in both the honest read signal and
the fail-closed reaper guards.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Execution workspace close-readiness payloads and terminal workspace
cleanup.
**Current behavior**
Delivered squash-merged or cross-branch workspaces can remain `active`
and report a permanent “not merged” warning because git ancestry does
not contain their original commits.
**Proposed behavior**
Read payloads distinguish PR-confirmed delivery, ancestry delivery,
unmerged work, and unknown state. Fully terminal delivered workspace
trees are archived only when no active run holds the checkout.
**Reason and benefit**
Operators and automation receive an honest delivery signal, while
shipped worktrees stop looking active forever and genuinely unmerged
work retains its warning.
**Breaking changes**
The workspace payload gains a derived field. Existing fields and
persistence remain unchanged; no database migration is required.
**What happened?**
A delivered workspace can remain `active` and warn that it is not merged
forever after its issue ships through a squash or cross-branch pull
request.
**Expected behavior**
Pull-request delivery should be represented honestly, and a fully
terminal delivered workspace should become cleanup-eligible when no run
holds its checkout.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create an issue workspace with commits ahead of its configured base.
2. Deliver those commits with a squash merge or into a different target
branch.
3. Mark the source issue and descendants done, then read workspace close
readiness.
Before this change, the workspace remains active with a “not merged”
warning indefinitely.
## What Changed
- Added the derived `deliveryState` workspace contract: `merged_via_pr`,
`merged_by_ancestry`, `unmerged`, or `unknown`.
- Extracted a shared GitHub pull-request merge classifier and reused it
for merge confirmations and workspace delivery checks.
- Suppressed false ancestry warnings when a terminal issue has
ground-truth merged-PR evidence.
- Added an idempotent terminality reaper with descendant-terminal,
active-run, and delivered-work guards.
- Restricted PR delivery evidence to the source issue, then required
live merged state plus matching GitHub repository, head branch, and
current workspace HEAD; persisted status, stale PRs, lexical mentions,
inbound references, and descendant PRs cannot authorize cleanup.
- Preserved workspaces with modified or untracked files even when their
committed HEAD was delivered.
- Bounded both long-lived pull-request state caches to 1,000 entries
with oldest-entry eviction.
- Routed eligible workspaces through existing runtime shutdown, lease
cleanup, activity logging, and archival machinery with exclusive Git
index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks plus non-forced removal.
- Added regression coverage for delivery derivation, warning behavior,
reaper guards, scheduler wiring, and squash/cross-branch delivery.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts
src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts --reporter=verbose`
— 63 passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts --reporter=verbose`
after review hardening — 43 passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts
src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts --reporter=dot` on the
final local head — 73 passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 15
passed
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` —
server 3,662 passed (4 skipped), UI 3,599 passed, CLI 327 passed, shared
415 passed, and skills catalog 20 passed; the aggregate DB stage ran
both source and built copies of one unrelated embedded-Postgres
migration test and both reached its 5-second timeout
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run
src/status-card-migrations.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — isolated
aggregate-timeout verification passed in 3.99 seconds
- `NODE_ENV=production pnpm build`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
## Risks
The reaper intentionally fails closed when issue terminality,
pull-request state, git ancestry, or checkout ownership cannot be
proven. GitHub lookups can delay classification and cleanup but cannot
cause an unproven workspace to be archived. Automated terminal archival
holds exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks across validation
and removal, skips configured destructive hooks, and uses non-forced
removal so dirty writes fail closed. Reopening a source issue does not
restore an archived workspace; it emits an audit event so a human or
agent can re-provision explicitly.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a more specific model ID
or context-window size. Reasoning, tool use, repository editing, test
execution, and GitHub CLI access were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Operators use issue pages to read task state and control task work
> - The issue header showed separate summaries for open decisions and
review paths
> - These summaries repeated state that belongs in the Decisions view
> - The extra sections added noise before the issue description and
thread
> - This pull request removes both header summaries and keeps decision
actions in the Decisions view
> - The benefit is a simpler issue header with one place for decision
work
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The issue detail header shows separate pending-decision and review-path
sections.
**Subsystem affected**
`ui/` — React and Vite board UI.
**Current behavior**
An issue header can show a decision strip and a larger review panel
before the issue content.
**Proposed behavior**
The issue header does not show either decision section. Operators
continue to manage decisions and stalled reviews in the Decisions view.
**Reason and benefit**
This removes duplicate decision state from the issue header and reduces
visual noise.
**Breaking changes**
The issue page no longer provides these summaries or shortcuts. Decision
data, review state, and the Decisions view do not change.
## What Changed
- Removed the pending-decision strip and review-path panel from the
issue detail header.
- Deleted the two unused header components and the panel-specific test.
- Kept stalled-review actions and their Storybook examples in the
Decisions queue.
- Added an issue-detail regression test that covers both removed
sections.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` (46 tests passed)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm build-storybook`
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
- Low risk. This change removes two issue-header surfaces. It does not
change decision APIs or data.
- Users must open the Decisions view to find pending decisions and
stalled-review actions.
> This change does not duplicate planned core work in `ROADMAP.md`.
GitHub searches found no related open issue or pull request.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context window are
not exposed. Tool use and code execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (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.
> - Agents move issues to `in_review` and rely on a "review path" (an
interaction, an approval, a monitor, or a named reviewer) to tell them
who decides next.
> - That review path can silently disappear. A user comment supersedes
the pending interaction, a monitor is exhausted, or a run ends without
restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with nobody
reviewing it and no visible action.
> - Such issues become invisible zombies. Nobody knows a decision is
owed, so the work stalls forever.
> - This pull request makes the review path a maintained invariant,
exposes a `reviewAttention` surface, and gives every stalled review
three inline actions in the UI.
> - The benefit is that an `in_review` issue always shows who reviews
it, or shows an amber "nobody is reviewing this" notice with one-click
Approve, Request changes, and Send back to work.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This pull request describes the problem inline. The tracking issue is
internal.
**Subsystem affected**
The review and attention loop that agents and humans share: the
`in_review` status, the `reviewAttention` surface, the /decisions
attention feed, and the issue-page review panel.
**Problem or motivation**
Agent-owned issues in `in_review` can lose their last review path. A
user comment supersedes the pending interaction. A monitor is exhausted.
A run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review`
with no reviewer and no visible action. It becomes an invisible zombie
and the work never progresses.
**Proposed solution**
Maintain the review path as a server invariant. Expose a
`reviewAttention` field that says what is under review, who decides, and
since when. Render a persistent review panel on the issue page and
inline actions on the /decisions feed. Keep human PATCHes into
`in_review` ungated, but record the requesting user so the panel never
renders empty.
**Alternatives considered**
A pure background auto-recovery sweep. This stays opt-in and is not
enough on its own, because it is invisible to the human. A bare status
banner. This is rejected, because it gives no action to resolve the
stall.
**Roadmap alignment**
This improves the core review and attention loop that both agents and
humans use every day.
## What Changed
- **Server — maintained review-path invariant:** when an issue enters or
sits in `in_review`, the server derives and persists a review path
(interaction, approval, monitor, or the requesting user) and recovers a
stale path with one bounded wake instead of leaving the issue pathless.
- **Server — `reviewAttention` surface:** a new field describes what is
under review (bound target with links), who decides, since when, and
whether the review is stalled. Stalled agent-assigned reviews are now
included in the attention feed.
- **Server — inline stalled-review decisions:** secured routes let a
permitted responder Approve (→ `done`), Request changes (→ `todo` + wake
carrying the note), or Send back to work (→ `todo` + wake) directly from
the attention feed.
- **Server — resume-intent wake:** an `in_review -> todo` transition now
wakes the assigned agent so a resumed review is not dropped.
- **Server — user-entry symmetry:** user PATCHes into `in_review` stay
ungated (no 422 for humans) and record the requesting user, who becomes
the named responder when no other path exists.
- **UI — review panel:** a persistent `IssueReviewPanel` renders above
the thread whenever status is `in_review`. The covered state shows the
bound target, responder, and outcomes and hoists the pending
interaction/approval card. The stalled state shows the amber notice plus
the three actions.
- **UI — decisions card actions:** the same three actions render inline
on the /decisions `AttentionQueueRow`.
- **UI — responsive fix:** the stalled action row stacks to full-width
buttons at phone width and returns to a horizontal row at `sm` and up.
New 390px stories capture the phone layout.
## Verification
- `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueReviewPanel.test.tsx
src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx src/lib/attention.test.ts
src/api/issues.test.ts` — 91 tests pass.
- Server suites added and updated: `issue-review-attention`,
`issue-stalled-review-decision-routes`, `review-path-recovery`,
`recovery-observability`, and related route/liveness tests (run by CI).
- A designer reviewed the UI at 390px and desktop in light and dark
themes on both the issue-page panel and the /decisions card. The stalled
action row stacks cleanly at phone width with no overlap and keeps the
horizontal row on desktop.
## Risks
- **Migration:** adds migration `0200` (next after master `0199`, no
renumber). It extends the agent-wakeup-requests schema and is additive.
- **Behavioral shift:** `in_review -> todo` now dispatches a wake. This
is intended (resume intent) and covered by tests.
- **Authz:** the inline decision routes are permission-gated. Only a
permitted responder sees and can trigger the actions.
- Overall risk is moderate and contained to the review and attention
loop.
## Model Used
- Claude, Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use and
code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip 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 app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The decisions desk and queue help operators find work that needs a
human decision.
> - The current views use different grouping, sorting, and labels.
> - Repeated confirmation requests can also leave stale pending actions
in the queue.
> - Blocked-work attention can point at an intermediate issue instead of
the terminal blocker.
> - This pull request aligns the server contract and both user
interfaces.
> - The benefit is a smaller, clearer queue that ranks the decisions
with the largest impact.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related PR: #10774
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The decisions desk and queue currently use different triage rules. They
can show stale repeated confirmations and can rank blocked work by an
intermediate issue.
**Subsystem affected**
This change affects attention aggregation, issue thread interactions,
shared attention contracts, and the decisions user interface.
**Current behavior**
The desk uses a can-wait group that has no clear arrival meaning. The
queue has fewer controls than the desk. Repeated pending confirmations
remain actionable. Blocked-work rows do not always identify the terminal
actionable blocker.
**Proposed behavior**
Group desk items by arrival date, and reserve Decide now for explicit
due dates. Use one toolbar and shelf model on both pages. Supersede
older repeated pending confirmations. Aggregate blocked work under the
terminal actionable blocker and rank it by impact.
**Reason and benefit**
Operators get one consistent triage model. The badge reflects new and
overdue work. High-impact blockers move to the top. Duplicate
confirmation work no longer consumes attention.
**Breaking changes**
The attention summary field `decideNowCount` changes to
`deskBadgeCount`. Consumers must use the new field. Older repeated
confirmation interactions can now finish with the
`superseded_by_newer_request` outcome.
## What Changed
- Supersede older pending confirmation requests for the same issue and
record the mutation in activity history.
- Resolve blocked-work attention to actionable terminal blockers,
suppress live blocker trees, and rank rows by blocked-work impact.
- Group the decisions desk into New today and Earlier, and count new
plus overdue work in the desk badge.
- Share the decision toolbar and shelf components across the desk and
queue.
- Add queue grouping, sorting, filtering, aging, visible training
controls, and clearer recommendation copy.
- Add server, shared-contract, and user-interface tests for the new
behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` (all
server, UI, CLI, shared, and catalog tests passed; one fixed five-second
DB timeout flaked under full-suite load)
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run
src/status-card-migrations.test.ts` (passed in isolation)
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- The attention summary field rename requires synchronized consumers.
- Terminal-blocker traversal uses cycle and depth guards. A malformed
dependency graph can stop at the last safe node.
- The new arrival grouping changes which items contribute to the
decisions badge.
- Superseding repeated confirmations changes the terminal state of older
pending interactions.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a dated model
snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository
tools, code execution, and test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The project workspace policy editor sets how agent runs share a
project's execution workspace.
> - The server now has a `sharedWorkspaceConcurrency` policy (Refs
#10759), but the UI had no control for it.
> - Users could not choose the concurrency mode without editing the API
directly.
> - This pull request adds a 3-option select (Auto / Serialize / Allow)
to the policy editor.
> - The benefit is that users set shared-workspace concurrency in the
UI, with clear helper text for each mode.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10759 (server contract this UI drives).
**Feature request**
- **Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.**
The `sharedWorkspaceConcurrency` policy field shipped on the server, but
the project workspace policy editor had no control to set it. Users
could not pick a concurrency mode from the UI.
- **Describe the solution you would like.**
Add a 3-option select (Auto / Serialize / Allow) to the
execution-workspace policy editor, with helper text that explains each
mode. An unset value must show as Auto.
- **Describe alternatives you have considered.**
A set of radio buttons was considered. A select matches the compact
style of the other controls in the same editor (environment, base ref).
## What Changed
- Added a "Shared workspace concurrency" select to the project
execution-workspace policy editor
(`ui/src/components/ProjectProperties.tsx`).
- The select offers three options with helper text:
- **Auto** (default): "Concurrent runs on local/SSH runners; runs take
turns in cloud sandboxes."
- **Serialize**: "Runs always take turns in the shared project
workspace."
- **Allow**: "Runs never wait for the workspace; concurrent edits are
possible."
- An unset or absent value shows as **Auto**. The UI writes a value only
after the user picks one, so the policy round-trips as Auto until then.
- Added a `SharedWorkspaceConcurrency` type import and a new
`execution_workspace_shared_concurrency` save-state key.
- Added a stateful Storybook story so the controlled select can be
exercised.
### Screenshots
**Before** (light / dark) — the editor had no concurrency control:
**After** (light / dark) — the select shows Auto by default:
**Helper text updates per option** (Serialize / Allow):
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` passes.
- Rendered the editor in Storybook (light and dark). The select shows
Auto when the policy is unset. Selecting Serialize or Allow updates the
helper text and the stored value.
## Risks
- Low risk. UI-only change. The control is additive and only appears
when isolated task checkouts are enabled. An unset value keeps the
current Auto behavior, so existing projects are unaffected.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 4.8 (claude-opus-4-8), extended thinking, tool use / code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The issue properties panel can show external objects such as GitHub
pull requests.
> - Those objects are resolved by external-object providers and then
displayed as compact status labels.
> - A GitHub pull request could remain in the fallback `unknown` state
and appear as `Not yet resolved`.
> - That label is confusing when the object is known but has not been
refreshed yet.
> - This pull request refreshes due external objects from the heartbeat
scheduler and improves the unknown-status copy.
> - The benefit is a properties panel that moves from pending refresh to
the real pull request state without a manual refresh.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. I searched for related
public issues and pull requests using the terms `Not yet refreshed`,
`external objects refresh`, and `external PR status`, and did not find a
duplicate implementation.
**What happened?**
The issue properties panel could show a GitHub pull request as `Not yet
resolved` even when the referenced pull request was valid. The object
stayed stale unless a manual refresh path ran.
**Expected behavior**
A known external object should show pending-refresh copy while it waits
for provider data. When the scheduler refreshes it, the properties panel
should show the provider status such as open, merged, or closed.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create or view an issue that references a GitHub pull request.
2. Open the issue properties panel.
3. Observe the external object row before a manual refresh has run.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Current `master` before this pull request.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev and self-hosted server.
**Installation method**
Built from source.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific.
**Database mode**
Not database-related.
**Access context**
Board view.
**Privacy checklist**
I reviewed this description and did not include logs, credentials,
private URLs, internal issue IDs, or PII.
## What Changed
- Added a heartbeat scheduler tick that refreshes due external objects
for active companies.
- Kept manual external-object refresh behavior on the same service path.
- Changed display copy so known provider objects use liveness labels
such as `Not yet refreshed`, while fresh unknown provider statuses show
`Status unavailable`.
- Added server and UI tests for scheduled refresh and label behavior.
## Verification
- `corepack pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts
ui/src/components/ExternalObjectPill.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build`
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`
- GitHub PR checks passed on head `0e7fcd30`
- Greptile reported 5/5 on head `0e7fcd30` with no unresolved review
threads
Notes:
- I ran recursive typecheck and build first. Both hit container resource
limits with exit 137 during concurrent package work, so I reran the
affected server and UI targets separately.
- An unrelated workspace-runtime auto-port test fails in this container
with a PID ownership mismatch. It is outside the files changed here.
## Risks
Low to medium risk.
The scheduler does more periodic external-object work, so the main risk
is extra provider refresh load. The implementation bounds the work to
active companies, due non-terminal objects, and 50 objects per company
per tick. The path also stays behind the external-objects experimental
setting.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex in the Codex execution environment, with shell and
GitHub CLI tool use. The runtime did not expose a more specific internal
model ID or context window.
## 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 Decisions desk shows work that needs a human decision
> - The queue foundation can group and rank decision work
> - Operators also need a focused daily view and a safe way to handle
old work
> - This pull request adds the desk controls, the aging shelf, and
reversible retention
> - It also binds bulk archive decisions to the exact reviewed item set
> - The benefit is a smaller daily queue without lost or orphaned work
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: server, UI, database, and shared contracts.
**Problem or motivation**
Decision work can grow into one large company list. Operators need quick
queue and date controls. Old items also need a safe retention path that
does not delete work.
**Proposed solution**
Add queue and date controls to the Decisions desk. Compute the aging
shelf on the server. Archive idle items after 90 days unless an operator
keeps them. Keep archived items searchable and revivable. Notify origin
agents in one batch per sweep. Bind bulk archive proposals to a signed,
exact item manifest.
**Alternatives considered**
Client-only aging can drift across browsers and source kinds. Deleting
old rows removes audit and recovery paths. An unsigned dynamic bulk
query can archive items that the reviewer did not inspect.
**Roadmap alignment**
This work supports the Work Queues and decision-memory directions in
`ROADMAP.md`. It extends the Decisions and attention-feed foundation
from #10651. Related earlier work includes #9380, #10010, and #10474.
## What Changed
- Added the queue rail, date chips, decide split, triage strip, queue
page, and aging shelf UI.
- Added server-owned shelf state with per-queue retention overrides.
- Added reversible retention state, archive history, and an idempotent
notification outbox.
- Added the 90-day archive sweeper, Keep exemption, archived feed query,
and revive actions.
- Added one origin-agent notification per agent and sweep.
- Added signed bulk archive proposals with exact-set and version checks.
- Persisted queue-exclusion reasons atomically and kept cross-domain
source resolution per-item until it has an exact-set transaction
contract.
- Added API contracts, OpenAPI entries, migration coverage, focused
tests, and Storybook screens.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run` (server: 329 files and 3,453 tests passed; UI: 408
files and 3,362 tests passed)
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest
run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- Focused retention, attention, decisions, migration replay, startup,
and UI API tests.
- Complete queue snapshot regression with 51 items across the normal
50-item page boundary.
The unmodified CLI test reports one warning assertion in this runtime
because the harness injects static AWS credential variables. The
isolated test passes when those two variables are removed.
## Risks
- The migration adds retention and notification outbox tables. It uses
idempotent table, index, and foreign-key creation.
- Retention runs on the heartbeat scheduler interval. Compare-and-set
version checks prevent stale archive writes.
- Bulk archive acceptance fails closed when authority, activity,
version, or the reviewed set changes.
- Archive is reversible and does not delete source records.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with `gpt-5.6-sol`. The model used tool calls, code
execution, database migration generation, and test execution. The
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 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Isolated workspaces give each task a safe and reproducible checkout.
> - The existing setup cloned the development database before an agent
needed to run the app.
> - This made worktree creation slower and heavier for tasks that never
start a service.
> - Runtime services already use one server start path for heartbeat,
operator, and startup recovery flows.
> - This pull request moves heavy setup to that start path and keeps
worktree creation lean.
> - The benefit is faster isolated workspace creation with the same
reliable runtime setup when a service starts.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related pull request: #10652 covers the initial deferred
database-seeding slice. This pull request supersedes it with end-to-end
runtime provisioning and safe cleanup.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves isolated worktree creation, runtime service startup, and
isolated instance cleanup.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: CLI worktree setup, server runtime orchestration, shared
workspace contracts, and development scripts.
**Current behavior**
Paperclip seeds an isolated development database during worktree
creation. It can also leave an isolated instance directory after
workspace teardown. This work happens even when no runtime service
starts.
**Proposed behavior**
Paperclip creates the worktree with a lean eager setup. It runs an
idempotent runtime provision command before the first managed service
spawn. Concurrent starts share one provision attempt. Teardown removes
the isolated instance safely.
**Reason and benefit**
Many agent tasks only edit and test code. They do not need a running
Paperclip instance. Deferring the database seed reduces workspace
startup cost while preserving automatic setup for tasks that start the
app.
**Breaking changes**
None. The new runtime provision command is optional. Existing workspace
behavior is unchanged when it is absent.
## What Changed
- Split Paperclip worktree setup into a lean eager script and an
idempotent runtime provision script.
- Added `runtimeProvisionCommand` to project, issue, realized workspace,
and persisted workspace contracts.
- Added a per-workspace provision mutex before local service spawn for
heartbeat, operator, and startup recovery flows.
- Added a persisted `provisioning` service state and the
`workspace_runtime_provision` operation phase.
- Kept provision time outside the service readiness timeout and made
failed attempts visible and retryable.
- Reclaimed isolated instance data during safe workspace teardown.
- Serialized deferred database seeding across processes and bound
teardown to the instance root captured in persisted workspace metadata.
- Added tests for config flow, concurrency, retry, no-op behavior,
readiness timing, scripts, CLI commands, and cleanup.
- Documented the eager and runtime provisioning contracts.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm test:run` (server: 3,201 passed; UI: 3,345 passed; the CLI phase
exposed one environment-sensitive AWS doctor assertion because the agent
runtime injects static AWS credentials)
- `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest
run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts -t 'passes AWS doctor checks when
non-secret provider config is present'`
- Focused runtime tests cover serialized provisioning, retry after
stderr failure, absent-command no-op behavior, operation logging,
persisted state order, and readiness timeout exclusion.
- Focused CLI and cleanup tests cover concurrent seed serialization,
stale-lock fail-closed behavior, persisted instance ownership, and
rewritten sibling pointers.
## Risks
- A faulty runtime provision script blocks service startup. Paperclip
records stderr, marks the service failed, and retries on the next start.
- Concurrent service requests share an in-process provision attempt,
while the seed command uses an atomic filesystem lock across processes.
A stale lock fails closed and requires an operator to verify no seed is
running before removing it.
- Isolated instance cleanup is destructive. The cleanup service
validates ownership and path containment before removal.
> 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-5.6-sol`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and
code execution. The service does not expose the context-window size.
## 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>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane for companies of AI
agents.
> - Operators use the attention feed to find decisions that need action.
> - The feed has eleven source kinds, but it has no durable queue or
triage state.
> - The feed also returns every item and lacks decision deadlines,
snooze state, and decision-focused ordering.
> - This pull request adds secure queue sidecars and enriches the
attention feed with triage data, filters, cursor pagination, and
decide-now ranking.
> - The benefit is a bounded feed that can show the most urgent
decisions first without weakening source visibility rules.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This pull request replaces the closed
[#10634](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/10634). It
combines that queue foundation with the dependent attention-feed change
as one review unit.
**Subsystem affected**
Database schema, shared contracts, server authorization and REST APIs,
and the UI attention client library.
**Problem or motivation**
The attention feed can contain hundreds of mixed decision items.
Operators cannot group them into durable queues, set a decision
deadline, snooze an item, or request a bounded page ordered by urgency.
The current client must download the full feed on each refresh.
**Proposed solution**
Store queue membership and triage state by stable attention identity.
Re-authorize each source during queue reads and writes. Enrich attention
items with queue, deadline, snooze, expiry, rule, and origin data. Add
activity and queue filters, opaque cursor pagination, decide-focused
ordering, and a decide-now count.
**Alternatives considered**
Adding queue fields to every source would duplicate schema and
authorization logic across eleven source kinds. Client-only filtering
and sorting would still transfer the full feed and would make pagination
unstable.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change improves the core decision-attention surface and operator
oversight. It does not implement the separate general-purpose work queue
milestone in `ROADMAP.md`.
## What Changed
- Added company-scoped queue, membership, triage, and append-only event
tables with actor and run provenance.
- Added queue CRUD, item membership, starter-rule discovery, and
decide-by and snooze endpoints.
- Kept source authorization on each queue mutation, read, and count.
- Added attention fields for expiry, rule, origin agent, queues,
decide-by attribution, and snooze state.
- Added activity date filters, queue filters, opaque cursor pagination,
and configurable page limits.
- Added decide-now ordering by deadline, expiry, severity, and activity.
- Added `decideNowCount` and excluded actively snoozed items from the
default feed.
- Updated the shared and UI client contracts.
- Added focused server, route, OpenAPI, and UI client tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/decision-queues-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ui/src/api/attention.test.ts
ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts` (72 tests passed)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/db --filter @paperclipai/shared
--filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
## Risks
- The migration adds four company-scoped tables and provenance foreign
keys. Migration numbering and safety checks pass.
- Attention reads can lazily create starter queues and memberships.
Inserts are idempotent, audited, and transactional.
- Cursor validity depends on the filtered feed. The API returns a clear
validation error when the cursor item no longer exists in that feed.
- Queue reads re-check source visibility. This favors correct
authorization over fewer queries.
> 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, model `gpt-5`. The runtime used agentic reasoning,
repository tools, code execution, and test execution. The runtime did
not expose the context-window size.
## 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
> - Agents can currently perform many mutations directly, while humans
often need a durable review point before cross-issue or destructive
actions occur
> - Existing approvals and issue-thread interactions do not provide a
standalone, reusable object for presenting options, collecting typed
inputs, detecting stale targets, and auditing effect execution
> - The control plane therefore needs a first-class propose mode that
separates an agent's recommendation from the governed mutation it may
cause
> - This pull request adds Decisions v1 across the database, shared
contracts, server execution and telemetry, agent skill guidance, and
operator UI
> - The benefit is that agents can propose multi-option actions safely
while operators get explicit provenance, fail-closed execution,
per-effect results, and a focused attention workflow
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting: `packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `server`, and `ui`.
### Problem or motivation
Agents need a governed way to propose consequential work without
immediately mutating issues, especially when one choice can affect
several issue trees. Existing approvals and issue-thread interactions do
not provide a standalone object with typed options, target snapshots,
effect-level authorization, expiration, execution outcomes, and reusable
attention-feed presentation.
### Proposed solution
Add first-class Decisions that store options and typed inputs, surface
open proposals in the operator attention feed, validate target freshness
and the origin-agent/operator authorization intersection at decision
time, execute a bounded set of auditable effects, and retain terminal
outcomes. Decisions v1 supports comments, status and assignee changes,
follow-up issue creation, blocker resolution, and issue-tree
cancellation, plus bundle grouping, expiration/dismissal, rule-key
telemetry, and agent-facing API guidance.
### Alternatives considered
- Extend approvals with arbitrary effects: rejected because approvals
represent governed yes/no actions and would become an unsafe generic
mutation envelope.
- Model every proposal as an issue-thread interaction: rejected because
decisions can span several targets and need independent lifecycle,
telemetry, idempotency, and effect results.
- Let agents perform the mutation and ask for retrospective review:
rejected because it removes the pre-execution governance boundary this
feature is meant to provide.
### Roadmap alignment
Aligns with `ROADMAP.md` sections **Agent Reviews and Approvals**,
**Enforced Outcomes**, **MCP Tool Gateway & Apps (governed tool
access)**, and **Activity History** by making explicit decisions,
authorization gates, auditable execution, and terminal outcomes
first-class control-plane objects.
### Additional context
This does not replace existing approvals or issue-thread interactions,
and it does not add an unrestricted generic mutation effect.
## What Changed
- Added company-scoped decision, option, target, and effect-execution
schema plus migration and shared TypeScript/Zod contracts.
- Added decision routes and services for propose, list/get, decide,
dismiss, cancel, target freshness checks, authorization intersection,
idempotency, activity logging, and execution auditing.
- Added rule-key decision telemetry and attention-feed metadata so open
decisions are visible and measurable.
- Added agent skill documentation for proposing and resolving decisions
through the Paperclip API.
- Added the Decisions UI: API client, query keys, inline attention
resolver, bundle grouping, target-issue strip, terminal history,
destructive confirmation, and per-effect result rendering.
- Added server service coverage, DecisionCard state tests, and Storybook
stories for the supported visual states.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run` — 2,876 passed, 1 skipped, with one unrelated
cross-suite cleanup-order failure in
`heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts`; the failing file passes
in isolation (`6/6`).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/DecisionCard.test.tsx` — passed (`9/9`).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/authz-existence-oracle-guard.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — passed (`5/5`).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts` — passed (`16/16`).
- `pnpm --filter paperclipai exec vitest run
src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts` — passed (`1/1`).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` and `pnpm --filter
paperclipai typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- Rebased-head focused suite — passed (`6` files, `88` tests): shared
decision contracts, Decisions service, OpenAPI routes, startup feedback
export, DecisionCard states, and attention helpers. The follow-up
stale-secondary-target regression passes in the DecisionCard suite
(`10/10`).
- Rebased-head scoped typechecks — passed for `@paperclipai/shared`,
`@paperclipai/db`, `@paperclipai/server`, and `@paperclipai/ui`.
- Rebased-head migration numbering and safety checks — passed after
renumbering the additive migration to `0193` and making it replay-safe
for environments that applied the earlier feature-branch number.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean.
- GitHub PR workflow and Greptile review for
`1f9f7645882d05dfdd9c99377c03a1f53f20e8be` — running after the
stale-secondary-target fix and PR metadata refresh on July 27, 2026.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook` exposes an existing
Storybook version mismatch (`storybook` 10.4.6 vs
`@storybook/addon-docs` 10.5.0); Decisions stories were validated with
the docs addon temporarily disabled and the tracked config remains
unchanged.
## Risks
- **Migration:** Adds replay-safe migration `0193`; migration numbering
and safety checks pass. The new tables and indexes are additive.
- **Authorization:** Effect execution intersects the proposing agent's
permissions with the responsible user context and fails closed; mistakes
could reject a valid proposal rather than silently over-authorize it.
- **Concurrency:** Target snapshots and idempotency keys protect against
stale or duplicate execution, but reviewers should focus on mixed-effect
partial outcomes and retry behavior.
- **UI:** Decisions are integrated into the existing attention feed
rather than a separate navigation surface, reducing routing risk but
increasing the importance of attention-item metadata compatibility.
> 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 using `gpt-5.6-sol` for final PR preparation, review
fixes, and verification; repository tools and code execution were
enabled, and context-window size is not exposed in this runtime.
- Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 with 1M context assisted with the Decisions
UI implementation, as recorded in the relevant commits.
## 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 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The recovery subsystem restores work after an agent run stops or
loses state
> - Recovery notices currently use the same visual weight as normal work
comments
> - Recovery agents can also post long narratives that obscure the
useful hand-off
> - The server must identify recovery output because agents cannot set
presentation controls
> - This pull request adds compact recovery notices, structured action
references, and brief recovery prompts
> - The benefit is a quieter issue thread that still keeps recovery
state inspectable
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and
`packages/adapter-utils`.
**Problem or motivation**
Recovery notices and recovery-run comments can dominate an issue thread.
Operators must scan routine recovery narration before they find the work
hand-off.
**Proposed solution**
Give routine recovery output a compact system-notice presentation.
Derive the presentation on the server so agents cannot hide arbitrary
comments. Keep the successful missing-state summary fully visible
because that comment is the recovery deliverable.
**Alternatives considered**
The UI could detect recovery text. That approach is fragile and does not
provide structured action references. Agents could also set presentation
directly, but that would weaken the current board-only security
boundary.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change refines the completed “Self-healing runs & automatic
recovery” and “Enforced Outcomes” roadmap areas. It does not add a
competing roadmap capability.
**Additional context**
The scope covers shared comment validation, server recovery notices,
agent-comment derivation, and recovery prompt text. No database
migration is needed because presentation data already uses JSON.
## What Changed
- Add the `compact` issue-comment presentation density to shared
constants, types, and validation.
- Give recovery escalation, waiting, and in-place notices compact titles
and structured recovery-action metadata.
- Use recovery-action metadata for notice deduplication, with the legacy
text marker as a compatibility fallback.
- Derive compact presentation for comments from recovery-scoped runs
while preserving the board-only presentation boundary.
- Keep successful missing-state recovery summaries fully visible.
- Ask recovery participants to record outcomes in `resolutionNote` and
keep source-issue comments brief.
- Add shared, route, service, and prompt tests for the new behavior and
exceptions.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- Focused Vitest coverage: 320 tests passed across shared validators,
adapter prompts, issue comments, recovery actions, and heartbeat
recovery.
- Full server phase: 292 files passed, 3,094 tests passed, and 2 tests
skipped.
- Full UI phase: 386 files passed and 3,182 tests passed.
- `pnpm build`
- Known master baseline: `cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` expects
`pass`, but the current implementation returns `warn` when strict secret
mode is disabled for Postgres. This branch does not change CLI secrets
code.
## Risks
- Low migration risk. The presentation column is JSON and needs no
database migration.
- Recovery-run detection depends on the persisted run context snapshot.
- Structured metadata becomes the primary deduplication key. The
existing body marker remains as a fallback for older comments.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with `gpt-5.6-sol`. The runtime did not expose the
context-window size. The model used agentic reasoning, repository tools,
code execution, and test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
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
> - A company accumulates real state — issues, labels, blockers,
documents, work products, monitors, attachments, agents, routines — and
people need to move that state between instances: self-hosted to cloud,
cloud back to self-hosted, or plain backups
> - The experimental, flag-gated Cloud Sync transport (#6548) tried to
solve this host-to-host: the source pushed into a receiver over HTTPS
with a cross-instance consent/token handshake, which required the
destination to be publicly reachable and broke for common self-hosted
topologies (plain-HTTP LAN/VPN origins); the receiver half never landed
upstream at all
> - Meanwhile the portability bundle and the existing export/import
pages already move companies offline with none of those networking
constraints — but silently dropped labels, blockers, issue documents,
work products, monitors, and every attachment
> - This pull request removes the host-to-host transport and makes
Import/Export the single data-movement path: the pages become
first-class company-settings destinations, exports declare exactly what
they do not carry, and bundle schemaVersion 6 now carries all of the
above, with attachments as content-addressed sha256 blobs verified
before a single row is written
> - The benefit is a migration and backup flow that works between any
two instances with no reachability requirements, no cross-instance auth,
and no silent data loss
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #6548 — the original Cloud Sync sender this PR supersedes and
removes.
- Related, not duplicates: #1697 (goals in the portability manifest —
orthogonal field addition), #954 (an earlier import/export +
skill-visibility proposal predating the current portability bundle).
- No open issue describes this directly, so in brief (feature-request
shape): **Problem** — moving a company between instances silently lost
labels (imports with label references actually hard-failed), blocker
relations, issue documents, work products, monitor state, and all
attachments, and the alternative Cloud Sync transport required the
destination to be publicly reachable over HTTPS plus a consent
handshake, which failed for typical self-hosted setups. **Desired
behavior** — one Import/Export flow in company settings that produces a
portable bundle carrying all of that data, tells the operator up front
what it cannot carry, imports with automations paused, and offers real
one-click activation afterwards.
## What Changed
- New export fidelity report (`GET
/api/companies/:companyId/export/fidelity`) + an "Export fidelity" panel
on the Export page listing anything a bundle will not include (now only:
approvals, cost history, activity history)
- Imports accept `pauseAutomations`; imported agents and routines land
paused, the import result reports created routines, and the Import page
ends in an activation panel that actually resumes selected
agents/activates routines
- Export and Import pages promoted into the company-settings nav; the
Cloud Upstream wizard, ux-lab page, and API client removed; the old
settings route redirects to Export
- Host-to-host transport removed: upstream-sync/receiver-client routes
and services, CLI `cloud connect`/`cloud push` + keypair store, the
shared upstream transfer contract, and the `enableCloudSync` flag;
migration `0196` drops the two experimental `cloud_upstream_*` sender
tables
- Bundle schemaVersion 6: labels (definitions + per-task names, remapped
by name on import), blocker relations (`blockedBy` slugs,
cycle-tolerant), issue documents (`tasks/<slug>/documents/<key>.md`),
work products (system refs nulled), monitors (notes/scheduledBy
restored, imported un-armed)
- Attachments travel as content-addressed `blobs/<sha256>` entries
(deduped; comment-scoped attachments re-link via comment index); every
blob is hash-verified **before any write**, so a corrupted bundle cannot
leave a partially imported company; both zip codecs now round-trip
extensionless/binary entries byte-exactly; the Import page preflights
the inline body limit and offers continue-without-attachments
- v5 (and older) bundles still import, with an informational warning;
bundles newer than v6 are rejected cleanly
- Docs: board-operator import/export guide, CLI README, README/ROADMAP
updated
## Verification
- `pnpm -r` typechecks (shared, db incl. migration numbering/safety
checks, server, ui, cli) and `pnpm check:token-gates` — clean
- Vitest: full server + shared sweep 4,888 passed / 1 skipped, with the
only 3 failures being pre-existing on `master` (2×
heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment, 1× workspace-runtime auto-port;
reproduced identically with this change stashed); ui + cli suites green;
the embedded-Postgres export-fidelity suite applies the full migration
chain including the new `0196` against a fresh database
- Live end-to-end on a scratch instance: seeded a company with labels, a
blocker pair, an issue document, a work product, a monitor, an agent, a
routine, and two binary attachments (one comment-scoped) → export →
import into a fresh company → labels remapped to new ids, blocker edge
and document restored, monitor un-armed with notes intact, attachments
byte-identical (sha256-compared through the API), agents/routines paused
→ activation panel resumed them; a v5-shaped bundle imported with only
the info warning; flipping one byte in a blob made the import 422 with
**zero** rows created
- Reviewer repro: create a company with a labeled issue + attachment →
Settings → Export → download → Settings → Import on another
company/instance → watch the preview, apply with "start paused", then
activate
## Risks
- Migration `0196` drops
`cloud_upstream_connections`/`cloud_upstream_runs` — experimental tables
behind a default-off flag; their connection/run history is intentionally
discarded
- Breaking removals are all of experimental, flag-gated surface:
`/api/upstream-sync/*` + `/api/cloud-upstreams/*` routes, `paperclipai
cloud connect|push`, and the `enableCloudSync` flag (stale keys in
stored instance settings parse harmlessly)
- Import remains non-atomic on mid-apply errors generally (pre-existing
behavior); the new blob verification specifically moved ahead of all
writes so tampered bundles cannot create partial state
- GitHub-sourced imports do not fetch `blobs/*` and skip attachments
with a warning
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic), via Claude Code CLI with
extended thinking, tool use, and subagent orchestration; implementation
and review split across Fable 5 subagents, with live end-to-end
verification against a running instance
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI
agents for work
> - The `codex_local` adapter runs OpenAI's Codex CLI through direct CLI
and ACP execution lanes
> - The adapter defaulted to the bare `gpt-5.6` alias while the bundled
ACP Codex version lacked GPT-5.6-family metadata
> - Default and legacy-configured runs therefore emitted
fallback-metadata warnings and could use generic context limits
> - This pull request upgrades the bundled Codex ACP dependency, selects
the concrete `gpt-5.6-sol` model, and normalizes the legacy alias in
both execution lanes
> - The benefit is correct model metadata without hiding genuine stderr
or transcript warnings
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related public PRs: Refs #9342, Refs #9352, and Refs #9382. This PR is
narrower: it upgrades bundled Codex metadata and normalizes the legacy
bare alias in both execution lanes.
**Bug report**
### What happened
Default `codex_local` runs, and agents still configured with the bare
`gpt-5.6` model, print a model-metadata fallback warning and use generic
context-window limits.
Root cause: the ACP lane bundled a Codex release predating
GPT-5.6-family metadata, while Paperclip's default and advertised model
used the bare `gpt-5.6` alias for which Codex publishes no metadata.
### Expected behavior
A default Codex run resolves to a concrete model slug with published
metadata and does not emit a fallback-metadata warning.
### Deployment mode
Self-hosted/local `codex_local` adapter.
## What Changed
- Upgraded `@agentclientprotocol/codex-acp` from `^1.1.0` to `^1.1.4`
- Changed `DEFAULT_CODEX_LOCAL_MODEL` from `gpt-5.6` to `gpt-5.6-sol`
- Removed the bare alias from advertised models and listed concrete
GPT-5.6 Fast-mode variants
- Added `normalizeCodexModel()` and applied it in both CLI and ACP
execution lanes
- Updated adapter docs, Storybook fixtures, and regression tests
- Preserved warning visibility; no stderr, transcript, or log filtering
changed
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `cd packages/adapters/codex-local && pnpm exec vitest run` — 205 tests
passed
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/adapter-models.test.ts` — 17 tests passed
- Confirmed the PR diff excludes `pnpm-lock.yaml` and
`.github/workflows/**` as required by repository policy
- Confirmed `.github/workflows/pr.yml` regenerates and uploads the PR
lockfile artifact before downstream `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
steps
## Risks
Low risk. The behavior change is scoped to `codex_local` model
selection. Existing concrete model IDs pass through unchanged; only the
legacy bare `gpt-5.6` alias is rewritten. Dependency resolution may
select a newer compatible `codex-acp` release within the declared range,
so CI remains the final compatibility gate.
> 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
- Original implementation: Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`,
1M context, tool use and code execution)
- Conflict resolution and PR preparation: OpenAI GPT-5.5 (`gpt-5.5`,
Codex CLI coding agent, high-reasoning tool use and code execution;
host-managed context window)
## 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
— branch name is fixed by the assigned execution workspace and cannot be
renamed in-place
- [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 control plane people use to organize
and operate AI-agent companies.
> - Agent behavior depends partly on the bundled Paperclip core skill
synchronized into each runtime.
> - The existing database and runtime plumbing already supports
immutable skill-version snapshots and per-agent version selections, but
no product workflow exposed that capability.
> - Replacing the live bundled skill globally would make champion
adoption risky and difficult to compare across agents.
> - This pull request adds an experimental, instance-level beta-skills
gate plus a repository release registry, immutable seeded releases,
enforcement, and a per-agent release picker.
> - The benefit is controlled per-agent evaluation of frozen core-skill
releases while the default-off path remains behaviorally unchanged.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting: `server/`, `ui/`, `packages/db`, and `packages/shared`.
### Problem or motivation
Paperclip needs a safe way to evaluate improved versions of its core
operating skill without globally replacing the live default. Today the
version-snapshot and per-agent pin plumbing exists, but operators cannot
use it. A global replacement would make regressions difficult to contain
and would prevent controlled comparisons across agents.
### Proposed solution
Add a default-off instance experiment that exposes immutable, named
core-skill releases. When enabled, operators can pin each agent to a
seeded release; when disabled, every agent resolves the live default
while saved pins remain intact. Validate pinned writes at the API
boundary, gate reads at runtime, and expose the selection in the agent
Skills tab.
### Alternatives considered
- **Replace the bundled core skill globally:** rejected because it
changes every agent at once and provides no rollback/isolation boundary.
- **Ship releases as separate skills:** rejected because releases are
versions of one core capability, not independently enabled skills.
- **Store release snapshots only outside the repository:** rejected
because repository provenance and hashes make builds reproducible and
reviewable.
### Roadmap alignment
This extends the Skills Manager / Skill Studio direction in `ROADMAP.md`
by making core-skill versions operable per agent. It does not duplicate
another open implementation PR; GitHub searches found no related
`enableBetaSkills` change.
### Additional context
The feature remains experimental and default off. The V7 champion was
selected through a multi-model evaluation process, and the frozen
release contents are verified by SHA-256 below.
## What Changed
- Added the default-off instance-level `enableBetaSkills` experimental
flag.
- Added `skills-releases/paperclip/` with the ordered release registry
and frozen `v0` plus `v7-roster` snapshots.
- Added release metadata to `company_skill_versions` and idempotent
release seeding. The migration was planned as `0191`, then renumbered to
`0192` because current `master` claimed `0191` before final rebase.
- Added read-time gating and write-time validation so disabled instances
always resolve the live default and reject pinned-version writes.
- Added the per-agent Release picker in the agent Skills tab, including
responsive layout and beta-pin state.
- Kept `EDITS.md` out of the release registry and PR diff.
### V7 Adoption Evidence
- Paid roster: 6 models, 94-case suite.
- Result: 553/564 pass-within-2, mean 92.17/94, versus the P2 baseline
of 544/564.
- Reference model improved 84→91; maximin improved 84→90.
- Final report:
https://pages.paperclip.ing/skills/optimization/paperclip/pap-14624-p3-final-20260721/
### Provenance
- `v7-roster` is the Phase 1 champion plus additions-only edits
E107–E112. Per-edit rationale remains in the evals repository at
`source/v7-roster/EDITS.md` and is deliberately excluded from this PR.
- `v0` is the `skills/paperclip` tree from commit `ea66ea81`.
- Champion selection was accepted on July 21, 2026 via board card
`9c304fc2` (PAP-14624 G3).
- This delivery mechanism was accepted on July 24, 2026 via plan
revision `2367abd2` (PAP-14858).
### QA Evidence
- P4 QA matrix comment `b7f40522-4e9b-4a3a-9821-28e86fe1a987`: all 6
acceptance criteria passed.
- Automated QA matrix: 166 tests passed with 0 failures, including real
filesystem materialization and full SHA-256 assertions.
- UI QA exercised the real agent Skills tab at desktop and mobile widths
with the experimental flag both on and off.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- Focused beta-release matrix: 169 tests passed across shared
validators, server services/routes/heartbeat behavior, instance settings
UI, and release picker UI.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm test:run`: server and UI partitions passed; one CLI doctor test
inherited temporary AWS credentials from the agent heartbeat and
expected no static credentials. The isolated rerun with
`AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID`, `AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY`, and `AWS_SESSION_TOKEN`
unset passed 8/8.
- V7 SHA-256:
- `SKILL.md`:
`53ab290489684cbf116fdd1406a95f6b6f53c9c36358b1bf8bfeae481e253575`
- `references/cases.md`:
`3b821f59064a7761091020a14819a8d787131f24029748563d6c0e1be7e6eaec`
- `references/workflows.md`:
`69747bd6e05f7e3673d1e67b07ff295df1869c05e1fd029804d5fa9177db92cd`
- Confirmed 49 changed files, no `pnpm-lock.yaml`, no workflow changes,
and no `EDITS.md`.
## Risks
- **Migration:** low-to-moderate risk. Three nullable columns and one
partial unique index are added idempotently; existing rows remain valid.
- **Behavior:** low risk while the flag is off because read-time
resolution forces the live default and saved pins are preserved but
inactive.
- **Frozen content:** release snapshots intentionally diverge from
future live skill edits; provenance and hashes make that divergence
explicit and reproducible.
- **UI:** low risk. The picker only renders for the bundled core skill
when the experimental flag is enabled and seeded releases exist.
> This extends the existing Skills Manager / Skill Studio direction
described in `ROADMAP.md`; it does not duplicate another open
implementation PR. The GitHub PR search found no related
`enableBetaSkills` change.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex using `gpt-5.5` with reasoning and
terminal/code-execution tools; context-window size is not exposed by
this runtime. Earlier implementation commits also record Claude Opus 4.8
assistance where applicable.
## 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
- [ ] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (required governance identifiers are included above; no internal
URL is included)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id (the approved delivery plan mandated this shared
branch name)
- [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.
> - Scheduled routines provide recurring control-plane work without
manual intervention.
> - The activity gate (`activity_gate_policy` / `activity_gate_scope`)
lets a scheduled routine skip a tick when nothing has happened since its
last run, so watcher-style routines stay asleep while the system is
settled instead of burning tokens every tick.
> - The scheduler, database columns, and the create/update API for those
fields already landed (see #9438), but there was no way for an operator
to actually set the policy from the routine editor, and the runs list
rendered gated skips as bare "skipped" rows with no "why".
> - This pull request adds the editor control and the run-row labels:
the Delivery section gets an "Advanced run policy" picker plus a scope
selector, and skipped runs explain why they were skipped.
> - The benefit is that the activity gate becomes discoverable and
usable end-to-end from the UI, closing the loop on the feature the API
already supports.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #8534 — activity gate for scheduled routines.
- Builds on #9438 (merged) which exposed the activity-gate create/update
API and the `Routine` response fields this UI reads and writes. This PR
is the editor/UI companion to that API work.
## What Changed
- **Routine editor — Advanced run policy control**
(`ui/src/components/routine-sections/editable-sections.tsx`): the
Delivery section gains a `RadioCardGroup` to choose between *Run on
every scheduled tick* (default) and *Skip when there's been no activity
since the last run*. When gating is enabled, a second scope picker
(*Company-wide* / *This project*) appears. The control is **disabled
with an explanatory hint** — rather than hidden — when the routine has
no schedule trigger, since the gate only affects scheduled ticks
(webhook/manual/API fires are themselves activity and always run). This
keeps the capability discoverable.
- **Edit-draft plumbing**
(`ui/src/components/routine-sections/context.tsx`,
`ui/src/pages/RoutineDetail.tsx`): `activityGatePolicy` /
`activityGateScope` flow through the edit draft, the delivery section's
dirty-field detection, the save payload, and revision restore, matching
how `concurrencyPolicy` / `catchUpPolicy` are handled.
- **Run-history skip reasons** (`ui/src/lib/routine-run-display.ts`):
skipped run rows now render a human-readable "why" —
`no_external_activity` → "Skipped — no activity since last run", plus
labels for `paused` and `worktree_execution_cutoff` — instead of a bare
status.
- Storybook fixture updates for the new routine fields, plus focused
run-display coverage for the skipped-run labels.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/routine-run-display.test.ts` — 11
tests passing.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all token gates clean.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — production build succeeds.
- Current-head GitHub CI for `9f9af8ecccfadcdc4a3afab313aafad81cbd1112`
— all checks pass (Storybook visual check skipped by workflow policy).
## Risks
- **Low risk.** UI-only change; no schema/migration and no server
changes (the API and columns already shipped in #9438). Fields are
optional and default to the pre-feature behavior (`always` / `company`),
so existing routines are unaffected. The scope picker only renders when
gating is turned on, and the whole control is inert without a schedule
trigger.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`, 1M context), extended thinking,
with tool use (repo edit + shell 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 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
> - Scheduled routines provide recurring control-plane work without
manual intervention
> - The new activity gate can suppress scheduled runs when no external
work occurred
> - The core scheduler and database support landed without a public
create/update contract
> - Agents, operators, and managed plugins need validated fields plus
discoverable semantics to opt in safely
> - This pull request exposes the activity gate through routine APIs,
revisions, plugin contracts, tests, and skill documentation
> - The benefit is backward-compatible control over idle scheduled work
without losing activity-triggered follow-up
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #8534
## What Changed
- Added shared activity-gate policy and scope enums with create/PATCH
validation.
- Persisted activity-gate fields through routine creation, updates,
revision snapshots, pipeline snapshots, and revision restores.
- Defaulted legacy revision snapshots during restore and added
regression coverage for pre-field snapshots.
- Extended managed-plugin routine declarations, production
reconciliation, and the SDK test harness to preserve non-default gate
settings.
- Added end-to-end API coverage for create/PATCH/list/detail
round-trips, defaults, and invalid enum rejection.
- Documented schedule-only semantics, activity windows,
own-run/read-action exclusions, scopes, and an hourly quiet-night
watcher example.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-e2e.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts
packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routines.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts -t 'activity
gate|preserves declared activity gate settings|resolves routine agent
and project refs'`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/workspace-routines.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- GitHub CI: all final-head checks green; Storybook visual regression
skipped by path rules.
- Greptile: 5/5 with no unresolved review threads.
## Risks
- Low risk: defaults remain `always` and `company`, preserving existing
routine behavior and old revision snapshots.
- Managed plugin manifests can now declare the same validated gate
settings as the public routine API; omitted values retain core defaults.
- Revision snapshots now include the new fields so policy changes are
not lost or treated as no-ops during restore.
> For core feature work, checked `ROADMAP.md`: this extends the existing
Scheduled Routines roadmap item and does not duplicate a separate
planned capability.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with repository tool use and code
execution; context-window size was 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 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
> - Connections is the subsystem that defines which external apps and
MCP-style integrations operators can browse, configure, and run
> - The v3 schema core in #9958 added stable connection identities, auth
metadata, and grant-aware contracts, but the app catalog still used the
older gallery shape
> - The product needs a richer, typed AppDefinition catalog so browsing
and setup can render provider-specific auth and configuration
requirements consistently
> - This pull request moves the Wave 1 app catalog onto generated
AppDefinition data and carries that shape through shared types, server
lookup paths, and app connection UI
> - The benefit is that follow-up runtime and wizard work can build
against one catalog contract instead of local-only mock/gallery data
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9958.
No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. This is the catalog layer
for the Connections v3 stack after the schema-core foundation in #9958.
## What Changed
- Adds generated AppDefinition data for the Wave 1 catalog and ingestion
reporting.
- Replaces the legacy tool app gallery exports with
AppDefinition-centered shared contracts, validators, and tests.
- Updates server tool-access lookup behavior to use the AppDefinition
catalog.
- Updates app connection UI surfaces and tests to consume
AppDefinition-backed catalog data.
- Documents the catalog ingestion workflow in the connector playbook.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts
packages/shared/src/app-definitions-url.test.ts
ui/src/pages/apps/AppsConnect.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
## Risks
- Medium: this changes the catalog contract used by shared, server, and
UI app connection surfaces.
- Catalog data quality matters because generated definitions now drive
browse/setup display.
- Follow-up runtime and wizard PRs must rebase on this branch or on
master after this lands.
> 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 with repository tool use.
## 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 control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and their governed access to external systems.
> - Connected Apps build on the existing Apps and MCP gateway substrate
so companies can configure reusable, auditable integrations.
> - The current connection record does not yet have a stable public
address, explicit ownership/auth method fields, or subject-specific
credential grants.
> - Without that schema core, later OAuth, per-user authorization, token
brokering, triggers, and connector-service phases cannot enforce tenant
and subject boundaries consistently.
> - This pull request adds the forward-compatible Connections v3 schema
core while preserving the existing connection lifecycle and directly
migrating the remote MCP transport name.
> - The benefit is a company-scoped, least-privilege foundation for
one-click integrations without bypassing Paperclip secrets, profiles,
rules, or audit controls.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No matching public issue was found.
**Problem**
Paperclip's current app connections need a durable identity and
authorization substrate before Connected Apps can safely support
multiple setup methods, per-user credentials, provider tenants, and
managed connector services. The existing schema only models a single
connection-level credential set and uses legacy transport terminology.
**Proposed solution**
Add a stable company-scoped connection UID, explicit
ownership/auth/transport fields, a subject-aware `connection_grants`
table, and multi-key credential annotations. Backfill existing
connections and workspace grants in a reversible migration, then update
shared/server/UI contracts to the new `mcp_remote` transport name.
**Related work**
- Related foundation: #9534
- Roadmap: Connected Apps (one-click integrations)
## What Changed
- Added company-scoped connection `uid`, `ownership`, `authKind`, and
canonical transport fields across database, shared contracts,
validators, services, and UI fixtures.
- Added `connection_grants` with workspace/user subject rules, provider
tenant metadata, credential secret refs, revocation state, company
scoping, and uniqueness constraints.
- Added migration `0182_connections_v3_schema_core` to backfill stable
UIDs, rename `remote_http` to `mcp_remote`, infer auth kinds, create
default workspace grants, and support rollback coverage.
- Added multi-key credential annotations and updated gateway/access
services without changing the existing lifecycle behavior.
- Updated the connection glossary, connector playbook, and security
threat model for the new identity, grant, and relay boundaries.
- Added explicit test UIDs to direct database fixtures so the new
non-null invariant is exercised across affected server suites.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-skills.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/tool-oauth-legacy-backfill.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/tool-access-policy-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-mcp-servers.test.ts
packages/db/src/connections-v3-schema-core-migration.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/tool-access.test.ts --config
vitest.config.ts` — 9 files, 218 tests passed.
- Latest-head GitHub Actions: build, typecheck, general/serialized
suites, backup/worktree restore coverage, both e2e shards, canary,
policy, and security scans pass.
- Greptile: 5/5 with zero unresolved threads.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` remains red only on five pre-existing `#9627`
color literals outside this change.
## Risks
- **Migration risk:** UID backfill and default-grant creation touch
every existing connection. The migration uses company-scoped uniqueness,
deterministic legacy UIDs with ID suffixes, and seeded up/rollback
coverage.
- **Authorization risk:** Grant rows carry credential references.
Constraints enforce workspace-vs-user subject shape, company/connection
lookup indexes, one default grant per connection, and one user grant per
connection/subject. Security review is requested specifically for this
design.
- **Compatibility risk:** `remote_http` is renamed directly to
`mcp_remote`; all repository call sites and fixtures are updated in the
same change.
- **Future-phase risk:** Subject-bound token issuance, triggers, and
connector-service relay verification remain fail-closed requirements
documented for later phases; this PR does not expose those capabilities.
> 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 coding agent. The runtime did not expose an exact
underlying model ID or context-window size; capabilities used include
repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, test execution,
Git/GitHub CLI operations, and structured reasoning.
## 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 control plane people use to supervise
AI-agent companies.
> - Operators need task execution state to be visible where they read,
reply to, and manage an issue.
> - Scheduled monitor state was easy to miss because it lived in a
description-area card and used inconsistent, mostly static time copy.
> - The task page, composer, retry card, and properties panel therefore
needed one shared monitor-state and countdown language.
> - This pull request adds shared live-ticking time utilities, moves
monitor status into a top-of-page banner and composer strip, and
redesigns the properties row with complete read-only details.
> - The benefit is that operators can immediately understand when an
agent resumes, why it is waiting, and how to act without hunting across
the page.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Issue monitors can schedule a future agent check, retry, or wake, but
the UI did not present that state consistently or prominently. The
existing description-area activity card competed with issue content, the
composer did not explain that replying wakes the agent early, compact
properties copy truncated important details, and relative times did not
share a live two-unit formatter.
This change makes scheduled monitor state visible and consistent across
the issue header, reply composer, properties panel, and scheduled-retry
card. Related prior server-side recovery visibility work: #9629
(distinct scope).
## What Changed
- Added shared two-unit monitor ETA/offset formatters and a live-ticking
countdown hook, including compact absolute-time rules for Today,
weekday, and cross-year dates.
- Replaced the description-area monitor activity card with a top-of-page
status banner and added an inline composer strip that explains replies
wake the agent before the scheduled check.
- Redesigned the properties Monitor row as readable two-line copy with
attempt state, due/overdue/cleared wording, click-to-edit behavior, and
a hover/tap details tooltip.
- Adopted the shared two-unit formatting in the scheduled-retry card and
added focused coverage for monitor formatting, state transitions,
visibility, and controls.
- Added the approved wireframe package and published reference:
https://pages.paperclip.ing/pap-14557-monitor-visibility/
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-monitor.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueMonitorBanner.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 3 files, 74 tests passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm build` — passed with existing Vite optimization/chunk-size
warnings.
- UX review approved the rendered real components across desktop/mobile,
light/dark, and the scheduled/retrying/due/overdue/cleared/none state
matrix.
- QA passed 6/6 criteria in Chromium, including a live countdown
transition without refresh. Review evidence included the P2 banner
state-matrix screenshot and the P3 properties-row and details-tooltip
screenshots, plus a dark-mode capture.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` currently reports five pre-existing `#9627`
comment literals on `origin/master`; this branch introduces none of
those literals or any new token violation.
## Risks
- Low-to-moderate UI behavior risk: monitor copy and placement change
across several issue surfaces, but all derive from one shared state
builder and focused tests cover the state matrix.
- Countdown rendering wakes once per minute while a visible monitor is
scheduled; the hook is limited to active monitor surfaces and stops when
hidden.
- No database, API contract, migration, telemetry, or authorization
behavior 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, `gpt-5.6-sol`; context-window metadata was unavailable
in this runtime; reasoning, repository tool use, command execution, and
test execution enabled. Earlier implementation commits were assisted by
Claude Fable 5 and Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context), as credited in their
commit trailers.
## 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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and their work
> - Human approvals, issue interactions, and execution decisions already
capture high-value decision moments
> - Those moments are currently transient and cannot be reused as stable
evaluation or training examples
> - Reusable examples need a server-owned, immutable snapshot so later
comments or runs cannot leak into the recorded state
> - Human notes need to remain editable and auditable without changing
the captured state
> - This pull request adds the database model, snapshot capture service,
API, export format, and attention-feed enrichment for decision training
> - The benefit is a durable, inspectable foundation for evaluating
whether agents can reproduce good human decisions from only the context
available at decision time
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting (`server/`, `packages/db`, and `packages/shared`).
### Problem or motivation
Paperclip has no durable dataset for converting human decisions into
evaluation-ready examples. Teams need to capture pending or resolved
decisions with the exact issue context, comments, runs, and repository
evidence available at a cutoff, while preventing future context from
leaking into the example.
### Proposed solution
Store immutable, schema-versioned snapshots anchored to durable
interaction, approval, or execution-decision records; keep notes
separately editable with history; expose human-only CRUD, list, and
JSONL export APIs.
### Alternatives considered
Client-generated snapshots were rejected because they duplicate cutoff
logic and cannot reliably enforce no-leakage boundaries. Automatic
outcome backfill was deferred so captured examples remain faithful to
what was known at capture time.
### Roadmap alignment
Supports the roadmap direction of turning completed work and decision
patterns into reusable organizational knowledge.
### Additional context
The implementation records explicit commit-resolution confidence
(`exact`, `nearest_run`, `workspace`, or `none`) so downstream
evaluation can distinguish evidence quality.
## What Changed
- Added the `decision_training_examples` schema and idempotent migration
with company, issue, and source/author indexes.
- Added shared types for decision-training records, notes history, and
versioned snapshots.
- Added a single server-side snapshot capture path with inclusive
comment cutoffs, pre-cutoff run capture, durable decision payloads, and
explicit commit-resolution confidence.
- Added create, list, detail, notes-only update, delete, and JSONL
export routes with human-only write authorization and activity logging
that skips no-op note submissions.
- Added per-user `trainingExampleId` enrichment to attention items.
- Added focused embedded-Postgres tests for cutoff boundaries,
post-cutoff leakage, immutable snapshots, human-only writes, duplicate
prevention, notes history, attention enrichment, and export shape.
- Updated UI test and Storybook attention-item factories for the new
required `trainingExampleId` contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/decision-training.test.ts`
— 10 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including
migration numbering and safety checks.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
## Risks
- The migration adds a new table and indexes only; it does not rewrite
existing rows or install resolve-time hooks.
- Snapshot JSON can grow with long comment threads and run histories; v1
intentionally favors complete, inspectable examples over aggressive
truncation.
- Commit SHA resolution is evidence-based and records `exact`,
`nearest_run`, or `none` so downstream consumers can account for
confidence.
- The API is additive, but future UI work must continue to treat the
snapshot as immutable and use notes-only updates.
> 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-5.3-codex`, with repository tool use, terminal
execution, and code-editing capabilities; context-window size is 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [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 control plane people use to organize,
govern, and understand AI-agent work
> - Operators need concise, current status views across projects and
execution workspaces without manually reading every issue and run
> - Paperclip already has auditable issues, documents, built-in agents,
routines, and live run events, but no first-class summary-slot workflow
connecting those systems
> - A built-in Summarizer can generate status prose through ordinary
governed tasks while summary slots provide stable, revisioned
destinations for that output
> - The UI needs to show current summaries, generation progress,
failures, revisions, and streaming draft status in the places operators
already work
> - This pull request adds the end-to-end summary-slot data, API, agent,
orchestration, and UI surfaces behind an experimental setting
> - The benefit is decision-oriented status context that remains
company-scoped, auditable, retryable, and inexpensive by default
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this feature.
**Problem**
Operators currently have to reconstruct project and workspace status by
reading many issues, runs, and comments. This makes it hard to identify
decisions, review queues, recent work, and the next event worth
watching.
**Proposed capability**
Add an experimental summary system with revisioned summary slots for
projects and workspaces, a paused-by-default built-in Summarizer agent,
governed generation tasks, live draft status, and reusable UI cards.
**Expected behavior**
- Summary data remains company-scoped and revisions remain auditable.
- Generation runs through normal issue/agent orchestration and
deduplicates active requests.
- Only the linked built-in Summarizer generation task can author a slot
revision.
- Operators can generate, retry, inspect revisions, and follow draft
progress from project and workspace views.
- The feature remains opt-in and background generation remains paused by
default.
## What Changed
- Added summary-slot schema, idempotent migrations, shared contracts,
validators, API paths, and service tests.
- Added company-scoped summary-slot routes for reading revisions,
requesting generation, and guarded Summarizer writes with activity
logging.
- Added terminal generation finalization, failure reasons, assignment
wakeups, and orchestration integration.
- Added the paused-by-default built-in Summarizer bundle, low-cost
runtime defaults, status-summarization skill, and stale-summary routine.
- Added summary cards, revision selection, retry/configuration states,
live draft streaming, transcript chunk handling, and project/workspace
integrations.
- Updated Claude local parsing for streamed status output and expanded
server, adapter, shared, database, catalog, and UI coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/summary-slots-schema.test.ts
packages/shared/src/summary-slot.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/summary-slot-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts
ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.status.test.tsx
ui/src/components/useSummaryDraftStream.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/summary-draft-stream.test.ts
ui/src/lib/run-log-chunks.test.ts
ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.hook.test.tsx` — 113 tests passed
- `pnpm test:run` — server and UI suites passed; one CLI AWS doctor test
was affected by inherited `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID`/`AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY`,
and passed when those host credentials were removed
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` with
inherited AWS credential variables removed — 8 tests passed
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm check:token-gates` currently reports nine `#9627` comment
references introduced by current `master`; none are in this PR diff
## Risks
- Database risk is limited by incrementally ordered, idempotent
migrations and migration safety checks.
- Summary generation creates normal issues/runs, so misconfiguration can
produce failed slots; the UI exposes retryable failure reasons and agent
configuration entry points.
- Streaming draft parsing depends on the documented `STATUS:` protocol;
final persisted revisions remain the source of truth.
- The feature is experimental, opt-in, and its built-in routine is
paused with no background token spend by default.
> 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-5.3 Codex with reasoning, repository tool use, code
execution, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip control-plane integration. Earlier
branch commits also record Claude model co-authorship where applicable.
## 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 control plane people use to coordinate
AI-agent work.
> - Execution workspaces provide the local service loop where operators
start, stop, restart, inspect, and open workspace services.
> - The existing header exposed those actions through separate controls
whose position and labeling changed across runtime states.
> - That movement made the most common development actions harder to
scan and easier to misclick, especially with multiple services or long
URLs.
> - The design therefore uses one fixed-geometry, state-aware control
bar and keeps service-specific detail behind a compact disclosure.
> - This pull request adds that control surface, maps existing runtime
data and every pending mutation into it, and integrates it into the
execution-workspace header without changing server contracts.
> - The benefit is a calmer, predictable service-control loop across
stopped, transitional, running, unhealthy, failed, multi-service, and
narrow-width states.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
`ui/ — React + Vite board UI`
### Problem or motivation
Execution-workspace service actions move and change shape as runtime
state changes, while URLs and multi-service status compete for header
space. During bulk actions, operators also need every targeted service
to show its transitional state immediately.
### Proposed solution
Use one fixed-geometry, state-aware service control bar in the workspace
header. Map existing runtime records into a stable status, URL, and
actions model, and track each in-flight bulk request independently until
it settles.
### Alternatives considered
Keeping the separate quick-control buttons was rejected because their
geometry changes by state. Showing every service inline was rejected
because it makes the header too wide; per-service detail remains in a
compact disclosure and the Services tab.
### Roadmap alignment
Reviewed `ROADMAP.md`; this focused execution-workspace UI improvement
does not duplicate a listed roadmap initiative.
### Additional context
The published design and state viewer is available at
https://pages.paperclip.ing/pap-14233-workspace-service-controls/.
## What Changed
- Added `WorkspaceServiceControlBar`, a fixed-geometry responsive
control for single- and multi-service runtime states.
- Added 15 Storybook states covering running, stopped, transitions,
unhealthy, failed, disabled, long-URL, mobile, and multi-service
behavior.
- Replaced `WorkspaceRuntimeQuickControls` in the execution-workspace
header with adapters that map live services and all pending requests
into the new control model.
- Added focused unit coverage for service-entry construction, bulk
pending overlays, request resolution, clipboard feedback, and header
integration.
## Verification
- `cd ui && NODE_ENV=development pnpm vitest run
src/components/WorkspaceServiceControlBar.test.tsx
src/components/WorkspaceRuntimeControls.test.tsx
src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx` — 29 tests passed.
- `NODE_ENV=development pnpm --dir ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all token gates clean.
- Reviewed the Storybook captures for all primary states.
## Risks
- Low-to-moderate UI risk: service controls depend on adapter mapping
from existing runtime records; focused tests cover single-service and
bulk-action mapping and integration paths.
- Multi-service bulk actions intentionally apply to all eligible
services, while per-service actions remain in the disclosure.
> 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.3-codex`; runtime-managed context
window; coding/reasoning mode with repository, terminal, Git, GitHub
CLI, and test execution tools.
## 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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane where operators configure and inspect
AI-agent work.
> - An issue can override the assigned agent's primary model for that
task.
> - The issue-properties UI labeled that per-task setting as `Custom ·
<model>`, which could be read as a property of the model rather than a
replacement of the agent default.
> - Operators need the UI to distinguish the agent's primary model from
an issue-specific override at both the collapsed summary and selection
point.
> - This pull request renames the lane presentation to `Override` and
adds concise provenance text without changing the stored lane value or
adapter configuration behavior.
> - The benefit is that operators can immediately understand which model
will run and why it differs from the agent default.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No matching public GitHub issue was found. Related implementation work:
#9700 moved Codex ACPX model configuration to startup and is already on
`master`; #9355 also addresses ACP session-config rejection behavior.
Those PRs concern execution behavior, while this PR is limited to
clarifying the issue-level override UI.
Bug report details:
- **What happened?** The issue-properties Model row displayed `Custom ·
<model>` for a task-level
`assigneeAdapterOverrides.adapterConfig.model`. Operators could misread
`Custom` as describing the model itself and could not see that the value
replaced the agent's primary model for this issue.
- **Expected behavior:** The UI should explicitly identify a task-level
model as an override and explain that it replaces the agent's primary
model for the issue.
- **Steps to reproduce:** Configure an agent with a primary model, set a
different model on an issue, and inspect the Model row and model picker
in Issue Properties.
- **Paperclip version or commit:** Reproduced on the pre-change branch
derived from current `master`.
- **Deployment mode:** Local development or any deployment using the
board UI.
- **Installation method:** Built from source.
- **Agent adapters involved:** Adapter-agnostic; any adapter exposing
model selection.
- **Database mode:** Not database-related.
- **Access context:** Board operator viewing issue properties.
- **Relevant logs or output:** Not applicable; this is a presentation
ambiguity.
- **Relevant config:** An issue-level
`assigneeAdapterOverrides.adapterConfig.model` differing from the
assigned agent's primary model.
- **Additional context:** The internal lane identifier remains `custom`;
only user-facing copy and explanatory text change.
- **Privacy checklist:** No private instance links, internal ticket IDs,
secrets, usernames, or local paths are included.
## What Changed
- Renamed the collapsed issue model label from `Custom · <model>` to
`Override · <model>` and added a provenance tooltip.
- Renamed the model-picker lane from `Custom` to `Override` and added
explanatory subtext at the selection point.
- Updated the Issue Properties component test to assert the new label.
- Added an isolated Storybook fixture for the task model override state
so visual review has a stable target.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 43
tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` — passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — the changed files are clean, but the
repo-wide command currently reports nine unrelated `#9627` comment
references already present on `master` as color literals.
## Risks
- Low risk: this changes display strings and explanatory copy only;
override storage, lane identifiers, API contracts, and execution
behavior are unchanged.
- The global token-gate false positive may also appear in CI until the
unrelated `#9627` references on `master` are allowlisted or the scanner
ignores issue-number comments.
> 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 assisted this PR preparation using medium
reasoning, repository-aware shell execution, Git/GitHub tooling, and
local test/typecheck execution. The hosted runtime did not expose an
exact model ID or context-window size to this session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have 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 control plane records a successful-run handoff when productive
work ends without a durable next-step disposition
> - That handoff state was derived only from the latest activity event,
without checking whether a corrective run or wake was currently alive
> - As a result, actively progressing issues could still show a
high-severity missing-disposition alarm and blocked-inbox row
> - The same stale required event could also remain indefinitely when a
later successful run correctly skipped recovery because another valid
continuation path already existed
> - This pull request makes the derived state liveness-aware, suppresses
attention only while the live path exists, and resolves stale required
events on valid-path skips
> - The benefit is that productive work stays calm while genuine stalls
still resurface automatically when liveness disappears
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- **Bug:** An issue whose latest successful-run handoff event is
`required` continues to report a missing disposition even while a
heartbeat run, scheduled retry, or queued/deferred/claimed wake is
actively targeting that issue.
- **Expected behavior:** The API should expose current continuation
liveness, the blocked inbox should suppress the alarm only while that
path remains live, and a later successful run that skips recovery
because a valid path exists should durably resolve the stale event.
- **Related but distinct:** #9370 changes disposition freshness at
detection time; #8748 adds an explicit policy opt-out. This PR preserves
detection/escalation policy and fixes read-time/current-liveness state.
## What Changed
- Extended `SuccessfulRunHandoffState` with `hasLiveContinuation` and
optional `liveRunId` evidence.
- Added bounded liveness hydration for required handoff states using
active heartbeat-run and wake-request signals.
- Suppressed `missing_disposition` blocked-inbox rows only while a run,
scheduled retry, or live wake targets the issue.
- Added durable `issue.successful_run_handoff_resolved` logging when
handoff detection skips because another valid continuation path owns the
next action.
- Added focused regressions for live/absent derived state, self-healing
attention suppression, valid-path skip classification, and
resolved-event logging.
- Updated UI normalization and fixtures for the shared contract without
changing rendering behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts` — 56 passed
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "queues one
finish-handoff wake when a successful run leaves in-progress work
without a next action"` — 1 passed
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
- Low risk: no schema or migration changes, and detection, bounded
correction attempts, and escalation behavior are unchanged.
- Liveness lookups are limited to issues whose latest handoff state is
`required`; blocked-inbox suppression reuses rows already loaded by that
query path.
- Suppression is read-time and self-healing: when the run or wake stops,
the alarm returns on the next fetch.
> 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-5.4`, tool-enabled software-engineering
workflow with repository, shell, test, Git, GitHub, and Paperclip
control-plane access. Context-window size is not exposed by 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)
- [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
> - When an agent's task is `blocked`, humans often comment on the issue
thread expecting it to reopen and resume
> - If the issue stays `blocked` because an unresolved (not-done)
blocker still gates the reopen path, the UI said nothing — the human
"sent a message and nothing happened" (a real silent-failure report)
> - That silence makes the product feel broken even though the gate is
working as designed
> - This pull request adds Rule C copy to the existing
`IssueBlockedNotice` surface: when a comment won't reopen a blocked
issue, it explains why and names the deepest unresolved blocker leaf
with its status
> - The benefit is that the human immediately understands the task is
*paused, not stuck*, and knows exactly which task to act on to unblock
it
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
<!-- No public GitHub issue — describing the underlying problem inline
(path B), following the feature issue template. -->
**Problem or motivation**
A human comments on a `blocked` issue expecting it to move back to
`todo` and resume. When the reopen gate keeps it blocked because an
unresolved (not-`done`) blocker remains, nothing in the UI communicates
this, so the user perceives a dropped message ("I sent a message and
nothing happened").
**Proposed solution**
Reuse the existing amber `IssueBlockedNotice` surface (the designated
blocked/recovery surface — no new component). When a message won't
reopen a blocked issue, the notice states that it won't reopen yet,
names the unresolved blocker leaf with its status (e.g. "Still blocked
by PAP-XXXXX (in progress)"), and reassures that it reopens
automatically once the blocker is done. UI-only; no server change.
**Alternatives considered**
Adding a server signal (a reopen-suppressed reason on the comment/notice
payload) was considered but rejected as unnecessary — the
unresolved-blocker set is already available client-side, so the copy is
derived in the component. Done-but-pending-finalize blockers are `done`,
so they fall out of the unresolved set into the standard reopen (Rule B)
path and are correctly not shown as reopen-suppressed.
## What Changed
- `ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.tsx`: added reopen-suppressed
messaging for `blocked` issues that still have unresolved blockers — a
lead sentence ("a message won't reopen it yet, then it reopens
automatically"), the named unresolved blocker leaf with its status, and
an "and N other task(s)" summarization when multiple blockers remain.
- `ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx`: added/updated tests
covering the single, nested-chain (deepest-leaf), multiple-blocker, and
empty-blocker states, plus the not-a-reopen-case (`in_progress`) path.
- `ui/storybook/stories/issue-blocked-notice.stories.tsx`: new Storybook
stories rendering each notice state for copy review.
## Verification
- `cd ui && tsc -b` — typecheck clean (previously failed TS2322 on the
story meta; fixed by a default `args`).
- Vitest: `IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx` green (single / nested /
multiple / empty / in-progress states).
- Storybook stories rendered at 1440×900 for all four states;
screenshots posted on the tracking issue.
- UXDesigner reviewed the notice copy and signed off (no copy edits
required).
## Risks
Low risk. UI-only, additive copy on an already-shipped amber notice
surface; no server or schema changes. The reopen behavior itself is
unchanged — this only explains the existing gate. Worst case is copy
wording, which had a design review.
## Model Used
Claude — claude-opus-4-8 (Opus 4.8), extended thinking, with tool use /
code execution in the Paperclip harness.
---
- [x] I searched the GitHub PR list for similar/duplicate PRs before
opening this one.
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and review work that needs human attention.
> - The Decisions page condenses approvals, failed runs, reviews, and
issue interactions into a scannable attention queue.
> - Some decision rows already include screenshot evidence, but the
collapsed thumbnail stack is too small for meaningful inspection.
> - Image-only rows were not expandable because expansion was previously
reserved for inline decision resolvers.
> - Reviewers therefore had to leave the Decisions page before they
could understand the visual evidence attached to a row.
> - This pull request makes rows with images expandable and presents a
readable, linked gallery while preserving the compact collapsed view.
> - The benefit is faster evidence review without sacrificing queue
density or existing inline-resolution behavior.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue currently tracks this feature.
### Subsystem affected
`ui/` — React + Vite board UI
### Problem or motivation
Screenshot evidence in Decisions rows is only visible as small
overlapping thumbnails, and non-inline rows cannot expand to show it.
This makes visual review unnecessarily slow and forces reviewers to
navigate away from the queue.
### Proposed solution
Treat active rows with images as expandable, render the first three
images at a readable size in an expanded gallery, and link images plus
any remaining-image affordance to the related issue.
### Alternatives considered
Always rendering large images would make the queue difficult to scan;
opening the issue immediately preserves density but prevents in-context
review. An explicit expandable gallery keeps both behaviors available.
### Roadmap alignment
`ROADMAP.md` does not list overlapping Decisions image-gallery work.
This is a focused improvement to the existing review surface rather than
a new product area.
### Additional context
The Storybook variants document both the collapsed thumbnail treatment
and deterministic expanded gallery state for reviewer inspection.
## What Changed
- Allow active Decisions rows with screenshot evidence to expand even
when they have no inline resolver.
- Keep compact thumbnails in collapsed rows and render up to three
larger, linked images when expanded.
- Add an accessible remaining-image tile that links to the related issue
when more screenshots exist.
- Add component coverage for image-only expansion and the
remaining-image issue link.
- Add collapsed and expanded image-gallery Storybook variants, including
deterministic initial expansion.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm --dir ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --dir ui build-storybook`
- QA visual verification (light + dark, no defects):
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9532#issuecomment-4964769485
## Risks
- Low risk: the change is isolated to Decisions row rendering and
Storybook fixtures.
- Rows with images gain a new expansion interaction, but existing inline
resolver behavior and deep links remain intact.
- The gallery intentionally limits the in-row preview to three images to
avoid unbounded row height.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 assisted with the original implementation
and tests.
- OpenAI `gpt-5.4` via Codex CLI assisted with current-master rebase
integration, verification, and PR preparation. The runtime
context-window size is not exposed; capabilities used include reasoning,
repository tool use, code execution, and test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies.
> - Company skills make reusable agent behavior discoverable and
editable from one place.
> - Projects already contain skill directories, but operators had to
import each skill path manually.
> - Copying those skills would break the desired write-through workflow
between Skill Studio and the source project.
> - The server therefore needs a safe preview/select/import contract
that only accepts rediscovered, workspace-contained candidates.
> - The UI needs a guided project picker that explains reference
semantics, handles conflicts, and remains usable on mobile.
> - This pull request adds that end-to-end project skill import flow
with authorization, tenant-scope, traversal, and symlink regression
coverage.
> - The benefit is faster bulk onboarding while keeping project files as
the single source of truth.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Feature request**
**Problem:** Importing several skills already stored in a Paperclip
project requires operators to discover and submit each local path
individually. This is slow, hides which well-known directories were
searched, and makes conflict/already-imported states difficult to
evaluate before mutation.
**Proposed solution:** Add an “Import skills from project” flow that
previews skills from well-known directories, lets operators selectively
import eligible candidates, and stores local-path references so Skill
Studio edits write through to the project files.
**Alternatives considered:** Copying files into company-managed skill
storage was rejected because it creates divergent copies. Trusting
client-supplied paths was rejected because imports must be constrained
to server-rediscovered, workspace-contained candidates.
**Additional context:** GitHub duplicate search found no existing issue
or PR for this exact workflow. Refs #3799 for related skill-import
inventory behavior; this PR does not claim to close that issue.
## What Changed
- Extend `scan-projects` with backward-compatible preview and
selective-import modes, typed validation, candidate statuses, and
OpenAPI coverage.
- Discover project skills under `skills`, `.agents/skills`,
`.claude/skills`, `.codex/skills`, `.cursor/skills`, `.opencode/skills`,
and `.gemini/skills`.
- Re-discover selections server-side, enforce company/project/workspace
scope, and reject traversal or symlink escapes before creating
`local_path` references.
- Add the Skills-page menu entry and responsive project import dialog
with project selection, grouped candidates, select all/deselect all,
conflicts, empty/error/403 states, and import results.
- Add route, service, and component regressions for preview
authorization, cross-tenant selections, traversal/symlink safety,
selection counts, grouping, and result semantics.
### Screenshots
**Choose a project**
**Review discovered skills**
**Mobile selection footer**
**Import result**
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts
ui/src/pages/skills/ImportSkillsFromProjectDialog.test.tsx` — 3 files,
81 tests passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all token gates clean.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- Security review passed after adding tenant-scope and
unauthorized-preview regressions; UX re-review approved desktop/mobile
surfaces; QA passed all seven acceptance areas including write-through
editing, deduplication, conflicts, empty state, and permission denial.
## Risks
- Files remain referenced in project workspaces, so moving or deleting a
source directory can make an imported skill unavailable; the UI
explicitly communicates the reference behavior.
- New well-known directory scans may discover more candidates than older
versions, but preview mode prevents mutation until the operator confirms
a selection.
- The endpoint remains backward compatible: omitting `mode` preserves
the prior full-import behavior.
- No schema migration or telemetry event 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
- Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 with tool use/code execution assisted with
the UI implementation and UX polish. OpenAI Codex CLI with tool use/code
execution assisted with server implementation, security fixes,
regression coverage, integration, and PR preparation; the runtime did
not expose Codex's exact backing model ID or context-window size.
## 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 uses company skills to make agent capabilities reusable
across an organization.
> - Skill operations currently mix capability availability with
permission checks, which creates avoidable setup friction and
inconsistent denial handling.
> - The policy contract needs to remain open by default while allowing
company-scoped restrictions for governed deployments.
> - Core owns the canonical policy actions, persistence, evaluation, API
behavior, safe import boundaries, and generic denial/read-only UI.
> - Enterprise policy-editor implementation belongs in the separate
`paperclip-ee` repository and is intentionally excluded from this PR.
### Problem or motivation
Company skill operations can encounter permission dead ends even when no
explicit restriction has been configured, and import-source
classification can drift between policy evaluation and execution.
### Proposed solution
Define eight canonical skill policy actions, default all actions to
allowed, persist company-scoped restrictions, expose policy evaluation
APIs, normalize import sources at the boundary, and update Skill Studio
to present actionable restriction states without embedding Enterprise
Edition implementation in the core repository.
### Alternatives considered
Keeping capability checks distributed across routes and UI surfaces was
rejected because it duplicates policy logic and makes denial behavior
inconsistent. Shipping the Enterprise policy editor in this repository
was rejected because `paperclip-ee` is a separate repository and must
receive its own PR.
### Roadmap alignment
Extends the completed **Skills Manager** roadmap area by adding coherent
governance and removing workflow dead ends.
### Additional context
The core API contract remains suitable for a separate Enterprise Edition
editor, but this PR contains no `paperclip-ee` package or EE-specific UI
integration code.
## What Changed
- Added the company skill policy contract to product and implementation
documentation, including the open-by-default rule, eight canonical
actions, decision shape, and core/EE ownership boundary.
- Added the company-scoped policy schema, migration `0170`, shared
validators, policy service, REST routes, OpenAPI coverage, and focused
server tests.
- Hardened import policy enforcement by normalizing import sources and
keeping source classification consistent between policy evaluation and
execution.
- Updated core Skill Studio behavior to remove generic permission dead
ends and show actionable policy/platform denial states only when an
operation is actually denied.
- Removed the `plugin-paperclip-ee` package, Docker wiring, EE
discovery/deep-link helpers, and EE-specific UI tests/stories from this
PR so that implementation can be submitted separately to the EE
repository.
- Preserved open-by-default behavior when no explicit company
restriction exists.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/skill-studio/SkillPolicySurfaces.test.tsx
src/lib/skill-policy-denial.test.ts` — 20/20 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec tsc --noEmit` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` — 12/12 passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
- `git diff --name-only origin/master | rg
'paperclip-ee|ee-skill-policy'` — no matches.
## Risks
- Migration `0170` introduces company policy persistence; rollout
depends on the migration applying before policy routes are exercised.
- Open-by-default is an intentional behavioral policy: deployments
expecting implicit denials must configure explicit restrictions.
- Import normalization is security-sensitive and should retain focused
review.
- The separate EE editor must stay contract-compatible with the core
policy API as policy actions evolve.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex CLI, runtime model identifier and context-window size not
exposed by this execution environment; reasoning, repository tool use,
shell execution, and code review capabilities 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 available to this runtime)
- [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 or
described the result 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 focused 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 on the latest head
- [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>
Co-authored-by: Evyatar Bluzer <bluzername@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters,
UI surfaces, and operator verification
> - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated
or human review
> - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs
stay below the 100-file review limit
> - This pull request is split 7/8 and focuses on Apps/Gateways UI and
feature-flagged activation
> - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while
preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Related parity reference: #9534
- Problem: The standalone UI foundation needs feature-flagged routes,
navigation, app detail flows, gateways, Storybook scenarios, and QA
configuration.
- Proposed solution: Adds Apps/Gateways pages and components,
navigation/route activation, remaining page integrations, Storybook
stories, and QA Vite configuration.
- Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or
rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor
of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves.
- Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access
work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate
roadmap initiative.
- Stack position: base branch is
`pap10341-split/06-ui-tools-foundation`.
- Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete
eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate
remains empty.
- Requested review: UXDesigner sanity pass on Apps/Gateways flows and
flag-off behavior; Greptile on every PR.
## What Changed
- Adds Apps/Gateways pages and components, navigation/route activation,
remaining page integrations, Storybook stories, and QA Vite
configuration.
- Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable.
- Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven
stack levels.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean
- Focused UI Vitest run with `NODE_ENV=test` — 17 files, 147 tests
passed
## Risks
- Navigation or flag regressions could expose incomplete experiences;
activation remains controlled by existing experimental settings.
- Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers;
mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy.
- Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from
#9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context
window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and
code-execution tools enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link
explicitly required for this coordinated split stack
- [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
- [ ] 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
## Stack Coordination
- Internal execution plan:
[PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan)
- Parity reference: #9534
- Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563
- Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff
at #9563.
## UI Evidence
QA captured these from the live Garden MCP split stack at 1440px and
verified clean rendering:
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters,
UI surfaces, and operator verification
> - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated
or human review
> - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs
stay below the 100-file review limit
> - This pull request is split 2/8 and focuses on database schema and
shared governance contracts
> - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while
preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Related parity reference: #9534
- Problem: The governed access model needs additive persistence and
synchronized shared types before server enforcement can compile.
- Proposed solution: Adds migrations 0148–0169, tool-access and Smoke
Lab schema, shared types/validators/gallery helpers, and the minimal
compile-required contract consumers identified by boundary testing.
- Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or
rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor
of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves.
- Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access
work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate
roadmap initiative.
- Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/01-demo-servers`.
- Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete
eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate
remains empty.
- Requested review: QA for migrations/validators; Greptile on every PR.
## What Changed
- Adds migrations 0148–0169, tool-access and Smoke Lab schema, shared
types/validators/gallery helpers, and the minimal compile-required
contract consumers identified by boundary testing.
- Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable.
- Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven
stack levels.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety
checks
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db test` — passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared test` — passed
## Risks
- Migration or contract mistakes could affect every upper layer; all
migrations are additive/idempotent and compile consumers are included in
this boundary.
- Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers;
mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy.
- Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from
#9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context
window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and
code-execution tools enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link
explicitly required for this coordinated split stack
- [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
- [ ] 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
## Stack Coordination
- Internal execution plan:
[PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan)
- Parity reference: #9534
- Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563
- Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff
at #9563.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate
AI-agent companies
> - Human operators use the Decisions attention queue to review and
resolve work that needs them
> - Decision rows were composed as a fixed content column plus a
right-side controls column
> - At phone widths, timestamps, actions, menus, and evidence thumbnails
compressed the decision headline until it was barely readable
> - This pull request makes each row respond to its own container width
and stacks metadata, content, evidence, and actions on narrow surfaces
while preserving the dense desktop layout
> - The benefit is a useful, thumb-reachable Decisions workflow on
phones and narrow side panels without regressing wide-screen density or
scrolling performance
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exactly matches this bug, so it is described here
using the bug-report fields.
**What happened**
Decision rows used a fixed two-column layout. On narrow screens, the
right-hand timestamp, overflow menu, decision buttons, and optional
thumbnails squeezed the headline into a truncated sliver.
**Expected behavior**
Decision headlines should remain readable on mobile, supporting context
should flow below the headline, and primary actions should remain easy
to tap. Wide rows should retain the compact desktop presentation.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open the Decisions / What needs me surface with populated attention
items.
2. Reduce the row container to a phone-width layout (approximately
390px).
3. Observe rows with multiple actions or evidence thumbnails.
**Paperclip version / deployment mode**
Current `master`, board UI in local or hosted deployments.
**Related public work found during dedup search**
- Refs: #9311 — original What needs me attention queue work.
- Refs: #9468 — recent Decisions scrolling performance work preserved by
this change.
## What Changed
- Reworked `AttentionQueueRow` into a container-query-driven vertical
stack on narrow surfaces, with the existing compact layout restored at
wide row widths.
- Made decision titles wrap to two lines, moved project/evidence context
below the headline, and promoted actions to full-width mobile tap
targets.
- Preserved upstream row memoization and `content-visibility` scrolling
optimizations while rebasing onto current `master`.
- Added three 390px Storybook scenarios covering populated rows,
type/detail variants, and snoozed/dismissed curtains.
- Updated the focused row test to assert the new thumbnail/context
alignment.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx` —
1 file passed, 16 tests passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all token gates clean.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook` — completed
successfully.
- `git diff --check public/master...HEAD` — passed.
## Risks
- Low risk: the behavior is isolated to the Decisions row presentation
and its Storybook coverage.
- Container-query breakpoints could need future visual tuning for
unusual embedded widths, but the wide layout remains available at the
row-level breakpoint.
- The mobile layout increases row height by design in exchange for
readable content and usable actions.
> 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 coding agent. The exact model ID and context-window
size are not exposed to this runtime; reasoning, repository editing,
shell execution, and test execution capabilities were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (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 for autonomous AI companies, where
operators need a reliable way to find and act on work awaiting their
input.
> - The attention and issue-thread interaction subsystems expose those
decision points across server APIs and the board UI.
> - The previous navigation and interaction presentation left these
actions fragmented and did not offer a controlled rollout for the
Decisions surface.
> - This branch adds the attention feed, richer interaction cards,
grouping, dismiss/snooze behavior, and a gated Decisions sidebar entry.
> - It also keeps experimental settings and API contracts synchronized,
with an idempotent migration for the new dismissal state.
> - This pull request delivers the complete, tested attention/Decisions
experience as one reviewable unit.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Adds an operator-focused attention queue and Decisions experience:
grouped decision cards, semantic interaction actions, dismiss/snooze
handling, resilient interaction states, and an experimental flag to
control the Decisions navigation entry.
## Feature Context
### Problem or Motivation
Operators currently have to hunt across approvals, interactions, failed
runs, and budget alerts to find decisions that need their action.
### Proposed Solution
Provide a gated Decisions attention queue that groups actionable items,
supports direct resolution, and preserves operator control through
dismiss and snooze actions.
### Alternatives Considered
Keep separate, source-specific views only; this leaves cross-cutting
operator decisions fragmented and harder to prioritize.
### Roadmap Alignment
This improves the V1 control-plane operator workflow by making pending
governed actions discoverable in one company-scoped surface.
## What Changed
- Added server attention-feed services, routes, interaction handling,
dismiss/snooze support, and an idempotent `0145` inbox-dismissal
migration.
- Added shared attention, inbox-dismissal, and experimental-settings
contracts.
- Added Decisions/attention UI, interaction-card states, sidebar
badge/navigation integration, grouping, keyboard support, and Storybook
coverage.
- Added tests for attention behavior, thread interactions, settings
normalization, dismissals, and API behavior.
- Removed generated screenshots from the final PR diff and rebased the
branch onto current `master`.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/inbox-dismissals.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts
ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` — passed: 158 tests
across 9 focused files.
- GitHub Actions for `ad636f560`: build and typecheck/release-registry
have passed; remaining general-server and Greptile checks are in
progress.
## Risks
- Moderate: this is a cross-layer attention/interaction feature with a
new migration and navigation behavior.
- The `enableDecisions` experimental setting defaults to off, limiting
rollout impact.
- Existing dismissal data is backfilled to `dismiss`; the migration is
idempotent and uses guarded constraint creation.
> ROADMAP.md was checked; no duplicate planned core feature was
identified. Related open pull requests were searched before opening this
PR.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with tool use and local code execution.
Context-window size unavailable in this environment.
## 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 public PR branch name describes the change and contains no
internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally; focused tests pass and the remaining
unrelated AWS test failure is documented above
- [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
---------
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.
> - The heartbeat/recovery subsystem decides whether an agent run has a
durable continuation path after the process stops.
> - External waits need stricter semantics than local background
watchers: a killed local process is not durable, while a first-class
blocker/monitor/scheduled wake is.
> - Without that distinction, recovery can repeatedly treat
adapter-failed continuations as live work and obscure the real reason a
task stopped.
> - This pull request adds explicit durable external-wait liveness
handling and documents the expected execution semantics.
> - It also improves operator-visible recovery evidence so invalid
external-wait paths explain why they were rejected.
> - The benefit is clearer recovery behavior, fewer duplicate
continuation recoveries, and a safer contract for monitor-backed
external waits.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #5978
- Related PRs: #4988, #7495, #8502
## What Changed
- Added durable external-wait liveness classification so
local/background watchers are not accepted as durable live paths after
the owning process exits.
- Preserved first-class blocker/monitor/scheduled wake paths as valid
external-wait continuations.
- Added backend regression coverage for killed watcher failure,
monitor-backed durable wait resumption, normal completion, blocker
behavior, and no duplicate recovery.
- Added adapter utility coverage for terminal cleanup behavior used by
local process adapters.
- Surfaced invalid external-wait recovery evidence in the recovery
action card and run ledger.
- Updated execution semantics documentation and the V1 implementation
contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-server` equivalent lane passed in CI-clean env: 238 files, 2164
tests passed, 1 skipped.
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-workspaces-a` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env: UI 305
files / 2430 tests; CLI 43 files / 230 tests.
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-workspaces-b` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env:
shared/db/adapters/plugin packages all green.
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode serialized` passed in fully
Paperclip-env-clean env: 107 serialized server suites green, including
84/84 heartbeat-process-recovery tests.
- `pnpm build` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env.
Notes: running `pnpm test:run` directly inside the Paperclip heartbeat
environment exposed local harness env contamination in existing tests
(`PAPERCLIP_CONFIG`, `PAPERCLIP_DB_BACKUP_DIR`, and
`PAPERCLIP_WORKTREE_START_POINT`). Re-running the same lanes with
inherited `PAPERCLIP_*` and port env removed produced the CI-equivalent
green results above.
## Risks
- Medium behavioral risk: this changes recovery classification for
stopped local external-wait processes, so adapters relying on unmanaged
background watchers must use blockers, monitors, scheduled wakes, or
explicit durable handoff instead.
- Low UI risk: recovery-card copy changes are covered by component tests
and Storybook screenshot QA.
- No database migration is included.
> 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 terminal/code
execution. Exact context-window metadata was not exposed in 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 (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [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.
> - Agents often work from reviewed plans that are approved through
issue-thread interactions.
> - Accepting a plan is not just a UI decision; it must reliably resume
the assignee so approved work continues.
> - A failed continuation wake could leave an approved plan stranded in
review with no durable retry or visible recovery path.
> - This pull request makes approved plan continuations retryable,
recoverable, and visible when resume fails.
> - The benefit is that operators can trust plan approval to either
resume the agent or produce an explicit actionable failure instead of
silent limbo.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists. Inline bug report follows the repository
bug template.
### 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 plan-confirmation interaction was accepted, the assignee
continuation wake could fail before useful agent execution. In that case
the issue could remain in review even though the plan had been approved,
because the failed wake was fire-and-forget and there was no durable
retry or recovery path for accepted continuations.
### Expected behavior
Accepted plan continuations should either wake the assignee
successfully, retry bounded infrastructure failures, recover dropped
wakes, or surface an explicit failure state that operators can act on.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Create an issue with an assignee and a plan confirmation that wakes
the assignee on accept.
2. Accept the confirmation.
3. Simulate a pre-flight continuation failure, such as process loss
before agent start or workspace validation failure.
4. Observe that the approved issue can remain in review without an
active assignee wake or visible retry/failure state.
### Paperclip version or commit
Reproducible on `master` before this PR's retry/recovery changes.
### Deployment mode
Local dev (`pnpm dev`) and server-side recovery paths.
### Installation method
Built from source (`pnpm install`, `pnpm dev`, test runner).
### Agent adapter(s) involved
Not adapter-specific; this is a core continuation/recovery bug. The
tests cover local-agent failure shapes without relying on a
provider-specific API.
### Database mode
Embedded Postgres test database for verification. The affected logic is
database-backed and applies to normal Postgres deployments as well.
### Access context
Board accepts the interaction; agent execution resumes through the
assignee wake path.
### Relevant logs or output
No sensitive logs are needed. The regression tests simulate the failed
wake and recovery states directly.
### Relevant config
No special config is required beyond an assignee with wake-on-demand
enabled.
### Additional context
This PR also prevents a stale workspace-validation payload from
quarantining another issue's active workspace and prevents unrelated
successful runs from masking a continuation that never resumed.
### Privacy checklist
- [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII, usernames, file paths,
API keys, tokens, and company names, and redacted where necessary.
## What Changed
- Added bounded infrastructure retries for failed accepted-interaction
continuation wakes.
- Extended stranded issue recovery so dropped accepted-plan continuation
wakes are requeued.
- Recorded and rendered explicit resume-failure state on accepted
confirmation cards.
- Added clean-workspace fallback for workspace-validation failures while
preventing cross-issue workspace quarantine.
- Tightened recovery so unrelated successful runs do not mask an
accepted continuation that never resumed.
- Added focused server/UI coverage for retry scheduling, recovery,
visible failure state, and interaction card rendering.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` — 106 tests
passed.
- Earlier branch verification also covered the issue-thread interaction
card tests for the visible resume-failure UI.
- GitHub CI is green on the replacement PR head, and Greptile reports
5/5 with no blocking issues.
## Risks
- Medium behavioral risk: this changes recovery behavior for accepted
continuation interactions and workspace-validation retries.
- Mitigation: retries are bounded, scoped to same-company issue context,
and workspace quarantine now requires ownership by the issue being
retried.
- Existing stored confirmation results remain compatible because the new
resume-failure field is 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, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled terminal workflow. The
runtime does not expose an exact context-window value to the agent.
## 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>
Dotta
Tonio
Devin Foley
