## 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
> - The server provides issue APIs and the database stores issue child
rows
> - The issue delete endpoint removes the parent issue before dependent
rows
> - Several issue foreign keys had no delete policy, so PostgreSQL
returned a foreign-key error
> - This pull request adds safe cascade and set-null policies and a
clear conflict response
> - The benefit is reliable issue deletion with a useful error when a
restricted audit row still blocks deletion
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#7728Fixes#4660Fixes#7991Fixes#4627Fixes#5086
**What happened?**
`DELETE /api/issues/:id` returned HTTP 500 when dependent comments,
thread interactions, read states, inbox archives, feedback votes, or
ledger rows referenced the issue. The database raised SQLSTATE 23503
because several foreign keys had no delete policy.
**Expected behavior**
The endpoint must remove dependent rows that have no meaning without the
issue. It must keep ledger rows with a null issue reference. It must
return HTTP 409 when a restricted decision audit row still references
the issue.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create an issue.
2. Add a comment or thread interaction that references the issue.
3. Send `DELETE /api/issues/:id`.
4. Observe the HTTP 500 response.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Commit `1f8f456f8340823fe2bd891ae8933d942f190b7b`.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev with embedded PGlite or external PostgreSQL.
## What Changed
- Add `CASCADE` to five issue child foreign keys.
- Add `SET NULL` to the finance and cost event issue foreign keys.
- Keep decision audit references restricted.
- Map SQLSTATE 23503 from the issue delete service to HTTP 409.
- Add migration 0217 for the seven changed tables.
- Add regression tests for cascade deletion and restricted decision
references.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`.
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`.
- Run `npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-remove-cascade.test.ts` from
`server/`.
- The regression test applies migration 0217 to a fresh embedded
PostgreSQL database.
## Risks
- Migration 0217 changes only seven foreign keys that reference
`issues.id`.
- Cascade deletion removes child rows that cannot exist without the
parent issue.
- Set-null preserves finance and cost ledger rows.
- Decision audit rows remain protected, so the endpoint can return HTTP
409.
## Model Used
Codex, based on GPT-5, with tool use and code-review support. The
implementation author used an AI coding agent. This PR handoff uses the
same model family to validate the commit and manage the pull request.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` /
`Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the
relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip Cloud provisions a dedicated tenant stack for each
customer. During signup it asks for a mission, a name and role for the
first agent, and a first task.
> - Cloud pushes those answers into the new stack at activation, as
`POST /api/companies/:companyId/onboarding-seed`.
> - No route served that path. The tenant answered 404, so Cloud
recorded the push as unacknowledged and retried on every portfolio
fetch.
> - The failure was soft. The answers stayed durable in Cloud and the
stack still activated. But the stack opened on the empty first-run
wizard, and it asked the customer again for what they had already given.
> - This pull request adds the receiving endpoint. It validates the
seed, applies it, and acknowledges it.
> - The benefit is that a seeded stack opens with the mission, the agent
and the first task already in place.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue covers this. The problem is described in-PR,
following the feature template.
**Subsystem affected**
server/ — Express REST API and orchestration services. Also
`packages/db` (one new table) and `packages/shared` (one new validator).
**Problem or motivation**
Paperclip Cloud collects onboarding answers at signup and pushes them to
the tenant stack at activation. The tenant had no route for that
request. It answered 404. Cloud treats a non-2xx as "not yet applied",
so it kept the answers and retried, but the stack itself stayed
unseeded. A customer who had already named their mission, their first
agent and their first task arrived at an empty first-run wizard that
asked for all three again.
**Proposed solution**
Serve `POST /api/companies/:companyId/onboarding-seed`. Validate the
body, apply it to the company, then acknowledge it.
The seed is customer free text, so it is bounded and validated in
`packages/shared` and read from the JSON body only. It is never read
from an `x-paperclip-cloud-*` header. That header set is the trusted
identity envelope: every member is derived server-side from the host
plus verified domain records, and that is exactly what makes it
trustworthy. Mixing user content into it would remove the property. A
test plants a mission on a cloud header and asserts that the body value
wins.
Application reuses the shapes the first-run wizard already produces, so
a seeded stack and a manually onboarded one look the same afterwards:
- The mission becomes the company-level goal. A multi-line mission
splits into a title and a description, as the wizard does.
- The agent becomes the company's first hire. Its free-text role ("Chief
of Staff") lands on `title`. The structural `role` stays `ceo`, which is
what the org chart and the default-instructions lookup read.
- The first task becomes an issue in the Onboarding project, assigned to
that agent.
Cloud retries until it gets a 2xx, and it reads any 2xx as "the tenant
holds this content". So the endpoint is idempotent per `revision`. A new
`company_onboarding_seeds` table records the applied revision together
with the goal, the agent and the issue it produced. A replay of a
revision that already matches is a successful no-op. A later revision —
the customer edited their answers — updates those three rows in place
instead of creating a second agent and a second task. The record is
written last, after every other write has landed, so a partial
application cannot present itself as acknowledged.
Everything is applied before the 200 is sent. This is an ordering
guarantee, not eventual consistency. The tests read the database
immediately after the response, with no waiting and no polling, so a
lazy receiver fails them on a fast machine as well as a slow one. That
matters because the redirect into the tenant dashboard is gated on this
acknowledgement.
**Alternatives considered**
Store the seed and let the tenant UI apply it on first load. Rejected:
the dashboard redirect is gated on the acknowledgement, so a background
apply would let the dashboard open before the agent and the task exist.
The whole point is that it must not.
Reuse `POST /companies/:companyId/agents` and `POST
/companies/:companyId/issues` over HTTP from Cloud. Rejected: it needs
three round trips with no shared idempotency key, and it moves the "did
all of it land?" decision to the caller.
**Roadmap alignment**
This completes an existing Cloud-to-tenant contract. It does not add a
new user-facing surface.
## What Changed
- Add `POST /api/companies/:companyId/onboarding-seed` in
`server/src/routes/onboarding-seed.ts`. It authenticates exactly as
`POST /api/companies/:companyId/logo` does, through
`assertCompanyAccess`.
- Add `server/src/services/onboarding-seed.ts`. It applies the mission,
the agent and the first task, and records the applied revision last.
- Add the `company_onboarding_seeds` table: schema, migration `0216`,
and journal entry. It holds the applied revision and the ids of the
goal, agent and issue the seed produced.
- Add `applyOnboardingSeedSchema` in `packages/shared`. It bounds
mission to 2000, agent name to 80, agent role to 120, task title to 200,
and task details to 2000 — the same limits Cloud enforces before it
sends.
- Mount the router in `server/src/app.ts` and register the path in the
OpenAPI document.
- Add `server/src/__tests__/onboarding-seed-route.test.ts` with 13
tests.
- The seeded agent is created on `claude_local`. This mirrors the
teams-catalog default for agents created server-side, where no human
runs an environment test first. `PAPERCLIP_ONBOARDING_SEED_ADAPTER_TYPE`
overrides it.
## Verification
```sh
pnpm typecheck # whole workspace, passes
npx vitest run \
server/src/__tests__/onboarding-seed-route.test.ts \
server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts # 15 passed
```
The suite runs against embedded Postgres with migrations applied, so
migration `0216` is exercised by every test.
The route tests cover:
- the happy path — mission, agent and task all applied, read immediately
after the 200
- replay of the same revision — no second agent, no second task, no
second goal, no second project
- a later revision — the goal, agent and task are updated in place
- a multi-line mission splitting into a goal title and description
- a revision-only seed
- the activity log entry written once, and not again on a replay
- a caller without access to the company — 403, and nothing written
- a body with no revision — 400
- each field bound past its limit — 400
- a mission planted on an `x-paperclip-cloud-*` header — ignored, body
wins
- an existing Onboarding project — reused, not duplicated
Not verified here: the full Cloud-to-tenant walk against a live stack.
That needs a deployed Cloud and a provisioned tenant together, which is
separate staging work.
## Risks
Migration `0216` creates one new table. It adds no column to an existing
table, rewrites nothing, and backfills nothing, so it is safe to apply
online. The migration safety check passes.
The endpoint writes to a company. Access is enforced by
`assertCompanyAccess`, the same gate the company logo write uses, and a
test covers the denial.
Behavioral note for stacks that already hold data. If a company already
has a non-built-in `ceo` agent, a first seed updates that agent's name
and title rather than creating a second lead. Likewise a seed adopts an
existing company-level goal rather than adding a parallel one. This is
deliberate: the seed is the customer's own stated answer from signup,
and two competing missions or two leads would be worse than one updated
in place. In the intended case — a stack that Cloud has just activated —
none of these exist yet.
The seeded agent is created on `claude_local` with an empty adapter
config. It is idle and needs the usual credential setup before it runs.
Seeding it does not start it.
## Update — rebased onto master + review hardening
Master moved on after this PR was cut, so it was **rebased onto
`master`** and
the seed migration was **renumbered from `0212` to `0216`** (the merged
#11101
took `0212_onboarding_first_task_unique`); the drizzle journal was
re-stitched
and `check:migrations` passes.
Two things landed on top of the original receiver:
- **Mission-only walk contract (PAP-67 r17.4).** The tenant now owns the
first
agent and the first task via #11101's server-owned onboarding path,
which
stamps `ONBOARDING_FIRST_TASK_ORIGIN_KIND` and races safely on the
partial
unique index `issues_onboarding_first_task_uq`. A comment in the apply
path
documents why this receiver leaves the first task to that path on the
cloud
walk, and a paperclip-cloud `node:test`
(`src/onboarding/walk-seed.test.ts`)
asserts the walk's seed carries no `agent`/`firstTask`. The receiver
retains
the agent/first-task code for its documented body contract, kept inert
on the
cloud path by the mission-only seed.
- **Three Greptile P1 fixes** (`95622fa37`): concurrent application is
now
serialized under a per-company `pg_advisory_xact_lock` (no duplicate
goal/agent/project/task on overlapping pushes); a revised first task
carries
its resolved `assigneeAgentId`/`goalId`; and the
`company.onboarding_seed_applied`
audit write is best-effort so a logging failure can't leave the entry
permanently absent. Two new regression tests cover the first two.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context window, extended thinking,
with tool use and code execution. Used for the original codebase
investigation, the implementation, and the tests. The rebase, migration
renumber, mission-only contract, and the three P1 fixes were done with
Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), 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: 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
> - The `@paperclipai/db` package owns the database schema and its
migrations
> - Some migration tests start an embedded Postgres server and replay a
migration against it
> - An embedded Postgres server needs 7 to 12 seconds to start on a CI
runner
> - Vitest stops a test after 5 seconds unless the test sets its own
timeout
> - Two of these tests do not set a timeout, so they fail on CI before
they assert anything
> - This pull request gives both tests a 30 second timeout
> - The benefit is that unrelated pull requests stop failing on a test
they did not change
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists for this. The problem follows.
**What happened?**
The test `packages/db/src/company-secret-proposals-migration.test.ts`
fails on CI. The error is `Test timed out in 5000ms`. The test never
reaches its assertions. The suite reports `1 failed | 104 passed`.
The failure is not caused by the branch under test. It appeared on three
different branches in a few hours:
| Run | Head | Failing jobs |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 31630781317 | `95622fa3` | `General tests (workspaces-b)`, `verify`,
`e2e shard (2/3)`, `e2e` |
| 31652020976 | `feba90c9` | `General tests (workspaces-b)`, `verify`,
`e2e shard (3/3)`, `e2e` |
| 31651467721 | `f2115207` | `General tests (workspaces-a (1/2))`,
`verify` |
The `verify` job reads the result of the general tests. One timeout
therefore turns into two red checks. A reviewer sees two failures and
reads them as a regression.
**Expected behavior**
The test starts an embedded Postgres server, replays the migration, and
asserts the schema. It must pass on a normal CI runner.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open any pull request against `master`.
2. Wait for the job `General tests (workspaces-b)`.
3. Read the failure. The test times out after 5000 ms.
The failure needs a slow runner. A fast development machine starts
embedded Postgres in less than 5 seconds, so the test passes there.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at `a09d7dcc0`.
**Deployment mode**
CI only. GitHub Actions, `ubuntu24` runner image.
## What Changed
- `packages/db/src/company-secret-proposals-migration.test.ts` — the
test now uses a 30 second timeout. The migration suites in this package
already use 20 to 60 seconds. 30 seconds is the most common value.
- `packages/db/src/status-card-migrations.test.ts` — the same change.
This test has the same defect. It does not fail yet because it replays
fewer statements. A fix to only one test moves the problem instead of
removing it.
- Both tests get a comment. The comment tells the next author why the 5
second default is too short.
These two tests were the only embedded-Postgres migration tests in the
package without a timeout.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm vitest run src/company-secret-proposals-migration.test.ts
src/status-card-migrations.test.ts` in `packages/db`. Both tests pass.
- These suites skip themselves when the Postgres binaries are absent. A
pass alone therefore proves nothing. Run the command with
`--reporter=verbose`. The output contains Postgres `NOTICE` messages,
for example `relation "status_cards" already exists, skipping`. These
messages prove the tests ran real SQL.
- Run the same command with `--testTimeout=1`. Both tests still pass.
This proves the per-test timeout overrides the global timeout. Before
this change, the same command fails immediately.
- All CI jobs on this pull request pass. The job `General tests
(workspaces-b)` passes. This job failed on the three runs listed above.
Not done: no attempt to reproduce the timeout on a development machine.
A fast machine starts embedded Postgres in less than 5 seconds, so the
failure does not occur there.
## Risks
Low risk. The change adds two timeout arguments to tests. It changes no
source code, no schema, and no dependency.
A longer timeout cannot hide a regression here. The tests assert the
same conditions as before. A migration that truly hangs now fails after
30 seconds. Before, it failed after 5 seconds with a message that
pointed at the wrong cause.
The `e2e` failures on the runs above have a different cause. The spec
`mcp-user-stories.spec.ts › US-9` fails with `502 — fetch failed` and
`fetch failed: bad port`. These errors come from MCP tool-connection
health checks. The failures hit different shards on different runs. This
pull request does not change that behavior. `e2e shard (2/3)` passes
here, which supports the view that those failures are unstable
infrastructure.
To revert, remove the two timeout arguments.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), through Claude Code. Extended thinking
enabled. Tool use enabled: file read and edit, shell command execution
for the local test runs, and the GitHub CLI to read the failing CI logs.
## 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
- [ ] 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 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work.
> - Agent adapters connect Paperclip to tools such as the Codex command
line tool.
> - A sandboxed Codex agent may start without a credential.
> - The operator needs a safe sign-in flow that does not expose
credentials to the shared package or the sandbox.
> - This pull request adds a company-scoped device-login flow with a
temporary Daytona sandbox.
> - The flow promotes the credential only after readiness checks pass
and removes the temporary sandbox after use.
> - The result lets an operator sign in to a sandboxed Codex agent from
the agent form.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting (multiple of the above)
**Problem or motivation**
A Codex adapter that runs in a sandbox cannot authenticate when the
company has no pre-provisioned Codex credential.
**Proposed solution**
Add a company-scoped device-login session. Start a temporary sandbox,
run `codex login --device-auth`, stream the code and URL, verify
readiness, promote the credential, and delete the sandbox.
**Alternatives considered**
Pre-provisioning a credential does not support first-time sandbox login.
Keeping the credential in the login sandbox does not provide a durable
company credential.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the roadmap item for cloud and sandbox agents.
**Additional context**
The flow uses a five-minute cleanup reaper, compare-and-set status
changes, and a PostgreSQL advisory lock to protect promotion and
cleanup.
## What Changed
- Add the adapter login-session contract, database table, and migration.
- Add company-scoped server routes and a service for sandbox device
login.
- Add credential promotion, readiness checks, and cleanup after login.
- Add restart-safe cleanup for abandoned login sandboxes.
- Add sandbox login controls to the agent creation and edit forms.
- Keep device-login and vendor identifiers out of public shared and
adapter UI symbols.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local exec vitest run`
passed with 310 tests at the submitted commit.
- The server login route, service, and reaper tests passed with 45 tests
at the submitted commit.
- The agent form render tests passed with 26 tests at the submitted
commit.
- The public-symbol leak check passed at the submitted commit.
- A live Daytona sign-in flow still requires confirmation by a user with
a live sandbox.
## Risks
The migration adds a new company-scoped table. A promotion or cleanup
race could remove a credential or leave a sandbox active, so the service
uses claims, compare-and-set transitions, and an advisory lock. The live
Daytona flow needs operator confirmation because local tests do not
provide a real browser sign-in.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code execution, extended 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 app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Company import moves large packages into an instance, and since the
upload cap rose to 1 GB, the transport is the weak point: one HTTP
request, buffered fully in memory, with no resume
> - A dropped connection at 90% of an 800 MB upload starts the whole
transfer over, and a server restart loses all progress
> - This pull request adds the server side of chunked resumable import
transfers: a durable run ledger and routes that accept the same import
zip as verified ~32 MB parts spooled to disk
> - An interrupted transfer resumes from the parts already uploaded —
across dropped connections, page refreshes, and server restarts — and
peak upload memory drops from the whole package to one part
> - The benefit is that large imports become reliable on real-world
connections instead of all-or-nothing
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Large company imports travel as a single HTTP upload. On a slow or flaky
connection, any interruption discards all progress and the upload
restarts from zero. The server buffers the entire compressed package in
memory during upload. A server restart mid-upload loses the transfer
entirely. With the upload cap now at 1 GB, these failure modes govern
exactly the imports the cap was raised for.
**Expected behavior**
A large import upload survives interruptions: already-transferred data
is kept and verified, only the missing remainder is re-sent, and the
server's memory use during upload is bounded by a part, not the package.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Import a multi-hundred-MB company package over a connection that
drops mid-upload.
2. The upload fails; retrying starts from byte zero.
3. Repeat on an unstable connection and the import may never complete.
## What Changed
- New `company_transfer_runs` table (drizzle schema + migration) and
`companyTransferRunService`: one row per transfer with a content-derived
idempotency key, per-part completion recorded atomically and
idempotently, resume scoped to actor and direction, completed runs
short-circuiting retries of identical content.
- New transfer routes beside the existing import routes, same
authorization: declare a sliced zip (`POST /import/transfers` —
validates cap, 64 MB part ceiling, contiguity, size sums, sha256
format), upload parts (`PUT .../parts/:n` — raw body, hash-and-size
verified before an atomic write to a disk spool under the instance root;
re-uploads are no-op successes), poll resume state (`GET .../:id` —
missing parts recomputed from disk), and apply (`POST .../:id/apply` —
requires all parts, re-verifies the assembled zip against the whole-file
hash fail-closed, then feeds the existing import pipeline through
factored helpers rather than duplicated logic).
- Hourly sweep fails and cleans spools idle for 24 h; a swept transfer
honestly reports all parts missing on resume.
- Strict UUID gating on run ids before any filesystem path construction.
- The existing single-shot upload path is untouched; clients arrive in
the follow-up PR.
## Verification
- Transfer route suite (embedded Postgres): create/upload/status/apply
round-trip with a real imported company, out-of-order parts, wrong-hash
part rejected and unrecorded, re-upload no-op, apply-with-missing-parts
rejection, resume after failure with prior progress intact,
assembled-hash mismatch failing closed with spool deletion, actor
scoping 404s, async-job apply, sweep followed by honest resume.
- Ledger suite (embedded Postgres): part idempotency, actor/direction
scoping, completed-run short-circuit, cancelled runs staying cancelled.
- Existing portability route suite unchanged and green; server + db
typechecks clean. Exact counts in the PR checks.
## Risks
- New routes are additive; the existing import path is untouched. The
transfer routes carry the same board authorization as the import routes
they sit beside.
- Disk spool: bounded by the existing upload cap per transfer, cleaned
on success, failure, hash mismatch, and by the 24 h sweep. Spool paths
are strict-UUID-gated.
- The apply step still materializes the assembled zip in memory once
(same profile as today's single-shot import at apply time); upload-time
memory drops to one part.
- Known limitation, deliberate: transfers are keyed on content alone, so
identical package content cannot be imported twice without re-exporting
(surfaced explicitly to the caller). Acceptable for v1; noted for
review.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`) via Claude Code CLI, with extended
thinking and tool use (multi-agent implementation with independent
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
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The 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>
<!-- ASD-STE100 -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The server keeps fleet health with periodic sweeps and shows a
dashboard with run activity
> - The Paperclip instance became slow again after the first round of
recovery-sweep indexes landed
> - Live profiling found four steady-state hot paths that read much more
data than they use
> - This pull request bounds the dashboard recursion, adds the missing
taskKey index, and narrows two wide reads
> - The benefit is a large drop in constant database load and a
responsive server
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Describe the bug**
The server becomes slow while agents work. Live query sampling shows
four hot paths:
1. The dashboard run-activity recursive CTE reads every run a company
ever had on each call. One call takes 2.85 seconds. The UI calls it
after almost every fleet event through the dashboard and sidebar-badges
routes.
2. The productivity-review sweep runs each 30 seconds. Its run-scope
filter is `issueId OR taskId OR taskKey` on the run context JSONB. No
index exists for `taskKey`. The planner must detoast every run snapshot
for the agent. One query takes 444 ms and the sweep makes one for each
of ~152 candidate issues.
3. The attention failed-run section selects the full `context_snapshot`
for every run newer than the oldest exhausted run. That fetch moves 29
MB for each feed build.
4. The retention sweep pages the attention feed with a cursor. Each page
makes a full feed rebuild.
**Expected behavior**
Periodic sweeps and dashboard queries read only the data they use, and
use indexes.
**Actual behavior**
The database stays saturated. Users see a slow server.
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/dashboard.ts`: bound both arms of the
`recovered_runs` recursive CTE to the chart window. A retry is always
newer than the run it retries, so the bound cannot change visible chart
data. Live time went from 2,852 ms to 54 ms.
- `packages/db/src/migrations/0210_heartbeat_context_taskkey_index.sql`:
add the `taskKey` expression index that completes the
issueId/taskId/taskKey trio. With all three, the planner uses a
BitmapOr. Live time for the productivity run-scope query went from 444
ms to 1.9 ms.
- `packages/db/src/schema/heartbeat_runs.ts`: mirror the new index in
the Drizzle schema.
- `server/src/services/productivity-review.ts`: select only the seven
run fields the evidence code reads. Before, the query pulled full rows
with `result_json` (up to 43 kB per row, 100 rows per issue).
- `server/src/services/attention.ts`: project `issueId`/`taskId` text
fields instead of the full `context_snapshot` in the failed-run
newer-runs query (29 MB per feed build before).
- `server/src/index.ts`: the retention sweep now builds the attention
feed once per company with `all: true` instead of one full rebuild per
cursor page.
- `packages/db/src/heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts`:
cover the new index and re-run migration 0210 statements to prove
idempotency.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` (includes migration
numbering and safety checks) — pass.
- `npx tsc --noEmit` in `server/` — pass.
- `npx vitest run
packages/db/src/heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts` —
pass (embedded Postgres, full migration chain, planner assertions,
idempotent re-run of 0209 and 0210).
- `npx vitest run` on attention, dashboard, productivity-review,
decision-retention, issue-blocker-attention, and issue-review-attention
test files — 72/72 pass.
- Live EXPLAIN ANALYZE before/after numbers are in the What Changed
list.
## Risks
- Migration 0210 builds one btree index without CONCURRENTLY inside the
transactional migration runner. The table is not in the large-table
bucket. The 0209 twin built in seconds on a 100k-row live table.
- The CTE bound excludes retry ancestors that are older than the chart
window. Those rows are not visible to the chart query, so chart output
does not change.
- The attention projection changes JSONB scalar handling in one edge
case: a non-string `issueId`/`taskId` value now casts to text instead of
reading as absent. These keys are always strings in practice.
- The retention sweep now holds one full feed in memory per company. The
cursor loop already accumulated all pages into one array, so peak memory
is unchanged.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic, Mythos-class tier, extended
thinking + tool use) via Paperclip agent runtime.
- [x] I searched existing PRs and issues and this change is not a
duplicate.
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 server runs a recovery sweep every 30 seconds. The sweep makes
sure assigned issues do not stall.
> - The sweep reads the latest heartbeat run for each candidate issue.
It filters `heartbeat_runs` on `context_snapshot ->> 'issueId'`. No
index covers this expression.
> - Each lookup scans ~26k rows and detoasts each row's JSONB context
(~645 ms per query, measured with EXPLAIN ANALYZE). With ~460 candidate
issues, one sweep schedules ~500 seconds of database work every 30
seconds.
> - The database saturates. Users see the whole server as slow.
> - This pull request adds expression indexes so these lookups become
index scans.
> - The benefit is that the recovery sweep drops from ~500 seconds of
database work per tick to milliseconds, and the server becomes
responsive again.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The server became slow for all users. `pg_stat_activity` sampling showed
the same two recovery-sweep queries active continuously (15/15 samples).
Each `getLatestIssueRun` call filtered `heartbeat_runs` on the unindexed
expression `context_snapshot ->> 'issueId'`, scanned ~26k rows, and
detoasted a 2.1 GB TOAST region. `heartbeat_runs` accumulated 10.8
billion sequential tuples read. `hasActiveExecutionPath` also scanned
`agent_wakeup_requests` (1.8M rows) on the unindexed expression `payload
->> 'issueId'`.
**Expected behavior**
Per-issue run lookups in the recovery sweep complete in milliseconds.
The sweep finishes well inside its 30-second interval. Background
maintenance does not degrade interactive latency.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a board with several hundred issues in `todo` / `in_progress` /
`in_review` and a large `heartbeat_runs` table with big
`context_snapshot` payloads.
2. Let the heartbeat scheduler run its 30-second recovery sweep.
3. Observe `pg_stat_activity`: the per-issue `heartbeat_runs` lookups
run continuously; `EXPLAIN ANALYZE` shows a filter on `context_snapshot
->> 'issueId'` removing tens of thousands of rows per call.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master (814cb336)
## What Changed
- Add migration `0209_heartbeat_context_snapshot_indexes.sql` with three
expression indexes:
- `heartbeat_runs (company_id, (context_snapshot ->> 'issueId'),
created_at DESC)`
- `heartbeat_runs (company_id, (context_snapshot ->> 'taskId'),
created_at DESC)`
- `agent_wakeup_requests (company_id, (payload ->> 'issueId'))` — with a
`large-create-index-not-concurrently` safety pragma and justification,
following the migration 0206 precedent.
- Mirror the three indexes in the drizzle schema files
(`heartbeat_runs.ts`, `agent_wakeup_requests.ts`).
- Add `heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts`. The test
boots a fresh embedded Postgres, applies the full migration chain,
asserts the indexes exist, and asserts with `EXPLAIN` that the planner
selects them for the exact hot query shapes.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec tsx
src/check-migration-numbering.ts` passes.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec tsx src/check-migration-safety.ts`
passes.
- `npx vitest run
src/heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts` passes (fresh
embedded Postgres, full chain 0000→0209, planner uses all three
indexes).
- `npx vitest run src/check-migration-safety.test.ts` passes (25/25).
- `tsc --noEmit` clean for `packages/db`.
## Risks
- The index builds run inside the transactional migration (no
`CONCURRENTLY`). The `heartbeat_runs` build must read its 2.1 GB TOAST
once; expect the migration step to add roughly 1–3 minutes to one deploy
while writes to the two tables wait. This is a one-time cost at startup,
before the server accepts traffic.
- Three new indexes add small write overhead to two hot-write tables.
The read savings are several orders of magnitude larger.
- No query or API behavior changes; the planner simply gains a better
access path.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic), extended thinking, with
tool use (shell, Postgres EXPLAIN/ANALYZE against the live instance for
measurement, vitest for 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
- [ ] 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <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
> - 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 is the control plane people use to manage AI-agent
companies.
> - Agents can encounter credentials during work.
> - Directly creating live secrets or bindings would bypass human
governance.
> - Proposal records must remain inert and separate from live secret
resolution until an authorized human approves them.
> - Approval must reuse the existing secret-create and protected
agent-config write paths.
> - This pull request adds the propose, review, approve, and reject
lifecycle.
> - The benefit is that agents can safely hand credentials into
Paperclip without exposing plaintext or gaining authority to activate
them.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Follow-on to #9921, which established run-bound agent secret access.
**Problem / motivation:**
Agents can receive credentials during work. There is no governed way for
them to propose a credential or binding without exposing plaintext in
work artifacts or immediately creating live access.
**Proposed solution:**
Store agent-authored proposals outside live secret tables. Encrypt each
proposed value and register exact-value redaction when Paperclip
receives it. Require an authorized human to approve or reject each
proposal. Approval executes through the normal write paths as the human
approver. Binding proposals can target only the proposer or its downward
reporting chain under the restrictive V1 policy.
**Alternatives considered:**
We rejected live secrets with a `proposed` status. That design would put
untrusted rows in resolver, list, and sync paths. It would also allow
uniqueness squatting. We rejected direct agent binding writes because a
binding is an agent-config write and must keep the existing human
permission gate.
**Roadmap alignment:**
This change extends the run-bound agent secret-access foundation in
#9921 with a governed proposal workflow.
## Security Verdict
Q0 SecEng verdict: **PASS-with-required-changes**. The review accepted
the separate proposal-table design and required the implementation to:
- fail closed unless both encryption and exact-value run redaction
registration succeed;
- scrub ciphertext idempotently on reject, withdraw, and expiry, with
audit-visible state;
- treat agent justification as hostile input and foreground action,
target, provenance, and approver permissions;
- snapshot and re-check the target agent plus reports-to chain at
approval to prevent org-chart laundering;
- make cascade approval atomic and fail closed if either secret creation
or binding authorization fails;
- deny low-trust, `skill_test`, `task_bridge`, and non-run-bound sources
consistently; and
- execute approval through the normal human secret/config write paths,
including protected-change gates.
Those requirements are implemented and covered by focused service,
route, and UI tests. Residual V1 risk remains the accepted 14-day
encrypted retention window. Proposal-time redaction also cannot clean a
value that leaked before the propose call.
## What Changed
- Added `company_secret_proposals`, migration `0207`, shared proposal
contracts, and a state-machine service for create, approve, reject,
withdraw, cascade, expiry, and ciphertext scrubbing.
- Added run-bound agent proposal routes and board review routes. The
routes derive provenance from authentication and enforce source
restrictions, company isolation, chain-of-command checks,
approval-as-approver, wake-on-resolution, and dual audit trails.
- Added durable per-run exact-value redaction registration so proposal
values remain redacted on later read surfaces.
- Added the Secrets **Proposals** tab and agent configuration **Proposed
access** rows. The UI shows fingerprint and length only. It also frames
agent justification as untrusted input, runs permission preflight,
supports approve and reject actions, and confirms cascades.
- Updated OpenAPI, agent skill guidance, API reference documentation,
and focused server and UI regression coverage.
- Rebased the branch onto current `master` and renumbered the proposal
migration after `0206`.
## QA Acceptance Results
Q5 QA verdict: **PASS — 9/9 acceptance criteria met**, with one Minor
non-blocking follow-up.
- **AC1:** proposed values never echo, never appear in live
lists/resolvers, and expose only fingerprint + length to board
reviewers.
- **AC2:** restrictive `self_and_reports` matrix passes: self/downward
allowed; upward/lateral denied.
- **AC3:** secret approval uses the normal create path, honors rename
overrides, records proposer/approver provenance, and scrubs ciphertext.
- **AC4:** approved bindings materialize and resolve through the target
agent's runtime list/fetch routes.
- **AC5:** pending-secret bindings require cascade; cascade succeeds
atomically and permission failures leave nothing applied.
- **AC6:** reject, withdraw, dependent rejection, and expiry paths scrub
ciphertext and preserve reasons/audit state.
- **AC7:** token/source and approver denial matrix passes through live
checks plus focused route tests.
- **AC8:** proposal lifecycle events and reused
`secret.created`/config-write events form the required dual audit trail;
origin-issue notification and wake are queued.
- **AC9:** both review surfaces render and execute correctly; UI
approval materializes the binding.
QA also confirmed zero plaintext occurrences for all exercised proposal
values in server logs. The single finding is that the company-level
`bindingTargetPolicy` toggle is not wired yet. V1 is hardcoded to the
restrictive `self_and_reports` policy. The matrix is correct and the
follow-up is tracked separately, so QA classified it as non-blocking.
## Verification
- Focused server proposal and redaction suite: 83 tests pass.
- Focused proposal review UI suite: 54 tests pass.
- Embedded-Postgres migration reapply test: 1 test passes with the
documented 30-second timeout.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passes, including migration
numbering and safety checks.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passes with all gates clean.
- Q5 exercised the complete propose, review, approve, bind, and
runtime-resolve flow over real HTTP, JWT, and database paths. It
verified 9/9 acceptance criteria.
## Risks
- Proposal ciphertext is retained encrypted for up to 14 days while
pending. Terminal-state and expiry scrub paths reduce but do not remove
server-compromise risk during that window.
- The V1 target policy is restrictive but not yet company-configurable.
A separate follow-up owns that change.
- A new migration can require another renumber if another migration
lands before maintainers merge this pull request.
> 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. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent. The exact runtime model ID and
context-window size are not exposed. The agent used reasoning,
repository editing, terminal execution, Paperclip API, and GitHub CLI
capabilities. Q3 UI work also records Claude Opus 4.8 assistance in its
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 or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [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.
> - 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 coordinates autonomous agent
work.
> - Agents need to collaborate on issues beyond their current
assignment.
> - Cross-issue comments and updates are useful, but an unbounded run
can create cascading side effects.
> - The control plane must preserve company-wide collaboration while
containing each run's influence.
> - Comment attribution must also show the responsible user and the
acting agent in audits.
> - This pull request adds run-bound cross-issue containment,
attribution, and agent-class wake rules.
> - The benefit is safer collaboration without restoring issue-assignee
ownership restrictions.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Agent-authenticated issue comments, updates, reopen behavior, and
assignee wake routing.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: server routes and services, shared contracts, database
schema and migration, and implementation documentation.
**Current behavior**
An authenticated agent can collaborate across company issues, but one
heartbeat run has no per-run side-effect boundary. Comment records also
do not persist the responsible user separately from the acting agent.
**Proposed behavior**
Require a valid heartbeat run for agent cross-issue comments and
updates. Audit each attempt and cap a run at 20 cross-issue effects.
Keep the cap in log-only mode until it automatically changes to
enforcement at 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. Preserve same-issue writes. Use
agent-class wakes for agent comments. Keep same-run completion comments
from reopening completed work. Record the responsible user on
agent-authored comments and activity.
**Reason and benefit**
Agents can collaborate on other issues without an assignment gate, while
each run has an atomic and inspectable side-effect limit. Operators can
identify both the acting agent and the responsible user.
**Breaking changes**
After 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC, the twenty-first cross-issue comment or
update from one heartbeat run returns a containment error. Agent
cross-issue writes without valid run context are rejected. The migration
is additive and backfills existing agent-authored comment attribution
where the source data is available.
## What Changed
- Added an atomic per-run counter for cross-issue agent comments and
updates.
- Added audit events for allowed and rejected cross-issue effects.
- Added the automatic log-only to enforcement flip at 2026-08-11 00:00
UTC.
- Added responsible-user attribution to agent-authored comments,
activity records, shared types, and validators.
- Added an additive migration and migration coverage for existing
comments.
- Updated reopen, resume, and wake behavior so agent comments create
agent-class wakes and same-run completion comments remain inert.
- Updated the implementation specification and regression coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/cross-issue-influence-limit.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-attribution-audit-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
packages/db/src/issue-comment-on-behalf-migration.test.ts` — 97 tests
passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration safety checks.
- `pnpm test:run` — server batch: 3,364 passed and 2 skipped; UI batch:
3,504 passed. One unrelated CLI doctor test warned because this 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` — 8 tests passed and confirmed
the CLI failure was ambient-environment sensitive.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
## Risks
- The fixed enforcement timestamp changes production behavior
automatically on 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. Audit logs before that time
provide rollout visibility.
- The per-run counter serializes on the heartbeat-run row. This prevents
concurrent attempts from racing past the cap but adds a small lock scope
for cross-issue writes.
- Existing comments can only be backfilled when their acting run or
agent attribution is recoverable.
> 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 in the Codex agent runtime. The runtime did not expose a
context-window size. Reasoning, shell tools, code editing, and test
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 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 server stores all state in PostgreSQL through Drizzle and the
postgres.js driver
> - Self-hosted installs run Postgres on localhost, so per-query latency
is near zero; hosted installs often attach Postgres over a network,
sometimes through a transaction-mode pooler
> - The DB client passes no options to the driver, so operators cannot
disable prepared statements or tune the pool without a source edit, and
the deploy docs told them to edit `client.ts`
> - The attention feed also runs its related-data lookups one after
another, so its latency grows as queries × network round trip
> - This pull request adds optional environment configuration for the DB
client and batches the independent attention-feed lookups with
`Promise.all`
> - The benefit is that network-attached deployments get correct pooler
support and a much faster attention feed, while self-hosted behavior
does not change
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists for this; description follows the bug report
template:
**What happened?**
On deployments where PostgreSQL is network-attached (managed providers,
pooled endpoints), the attention feed endpoint is slow:
`attentionService.list()` awaits ~15–20 queries strictly in sequence, so
a 70ms round trip turns into more than one second of pure network wait
per call. Separately, connecting through a transaction-mode pooler
(pgbouncer, Supavisor port 6543, Neon `-pooler` hosts) requires
disabling prepared statements, and the only documented way was to
hand-edit `packages/db/src/client.ts` — which `doc/DATABASE.md` itself
tells operators not to do.
**Expected behavior**
The DB client is configurable from the environment (prepared statements,
pool size, timeouts) with driver defaults when unset, and hot read paths
do not multiply network latency by issuing independent queries
sequentially.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run the server with `DATABASE_URL` pointing at a Postgres instance
with ~70ms round-trip latency.
2. Open the attention feed (`GET /companies/:companyId/attention`) and
measure response time — it exceeds one second even with little data.
3. Try to connect through a transaction-mode pooler: there is no
supported configuration to disable prepared statements.
## What Changed
- `packages/db/src/client.ts`: `createDb` accepts a
`DatabaseClientOptions` argument and reads optional env config —
`DATABASE_PREPARED_STATEMENTS`, `DATABASE_POOL_MAX`,
`DATABASE_IDLE_TIMEOUT_SECONDS`, `DATABASE_CONNECT_TIMEOUT_SECONDS`.
When nothing is set, no option is passed to the driver and behavior is
identical to the previous bare `postgres(url)`.
- `packages/db/src/client-options.test.ts` (new): env parsing and
driver-option mapping tests, including malformed-value rejection.
- `server/src/services/attention.ts`: the independent related-data
lookups in each feed section now run under `Promise.all` (issue
summary/image/plan-document maps, decision bundle titles, blocked-issue
maps, the newer-runs scan). Section order, item assembly, and query
shapes are unchanged.
- `doc/DATABASE.md` and `docs/deploy/database.md`: the edit-source
pooling instruction is replaced with the env toggle, plus a short
client-tuning reference.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run
src/client-options.test.ts` — 6 tests pass.
- `pnpm --filter server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts` — 22 tests pass.
- `pnpm --filter server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/decision-training.test.ts` — 45 tests pass; this covers
the call path that runs `attentionService.list()` inside
`db.transaction`, where postgres.js serializes queries on the reserved
connection.
- `tsc` reports no errors in the changed files.
## Risks
- Low risk for self-hosted installs: with no env vars set,
`postgres(url, {})` receives an empty options object, which postgres.js
treats the same as no options — driver defaults throughout.
- The `Promise.all` batches only group queries that had no data
dependency on each other; on the transaction call path the driver still
executes them one at a time on the reserved connection, so transactional
semantics are unchanged.
- Malformed env values now fail fast at startup with a clear message
instead of being silently ignored; this is intentional and only affects
operators who set the new variables.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), Anthropic — via Claude Code CLI,
extended thinking enabled, tool use (test execution, live latency
measurement against a network-attached Postgres to size the problem).
## 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 (searched "prepared statements", "pgbouncer", "pool",
"attention feed", "lockfile" — closest matches are #10573/#10787
lockfile chores, unrelated to this change)
- [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 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>
<!-- 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 control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies
> - Operators need a predictable installation path that survives beyond
an ephemeral `npx` process
> - A durable installation needs an owned per-user payload store, stable
command shim, safe shell integration, and supported service lifecycle
> - Updates must preserve recoverability by backing up data, installing
side-by-side, verifying the new payload, and retaining rollback state
> - Bootstrap scripts and privileged service operations must fail closed
across download, filesystem, ownership, and consent boundaries
> - This pull request integrates managed install, update, rollback,
service, uninstall, doctor, bootstrap-installer, and runtime-serving
support into one workflow
> - The benefit is a recoverable, inspectable, and documented
installation lifecycle with explicit safety boundaries across Linux,
macOS, containers, WSL, npm, npx, and source checkouts
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Problem
Paperclip lacks a first-class durable installation and lifecycle
workflow. Operators currently have to assemble npm/npx installation,
PATH setup, background-service management, updates, rollback,
diagnostics, and uninstall behavior themselves. That makes upgrades
harder to recover, creates inconsistent behavior across platforms, and
leaves shell/download/service trust boundaries without one documented
implementation.
### Proposed Solution
Add a managed per-user install store and stable shim, a verified shell
bootstrap installer, service lifecycle commands, install-mode-aware
update/rollback behavior, doctor checks, and documentation. Managed
updates back up the database, install and smoke-test a side-by-side
payload, atomically switch `current`, and retain prior payloads. The
shell installer pins registry/download trust boundaries and requires
explicit consent for non-interactive privileged actions.
### Alternatives Considered
- Keep recommending `npx`: simple for evaluation, but ephemeral and
unsuitable for stable services, atomic updates, or rollback.
- Require global npm installation only: familiar, but cannot provide the
owned side-by-side payload store and retained rollback semantics.
- Split the capability across multiple PRs: rejected because install,
update, service, uninstall, bootstrap, and serving behavior share
contracts and security boundaries that need review together.
### Related Pull Requests
- Supersedes #10042 and #10044 with one integrated final diff.
- Incorporates and replaces the closed preparatory work in #10032 and
#10034.
## What Changed
- Added `paperclipai install`, `update`/`upgrade`, rollback, uninstall,
service lifecycle, onboarding integration, and managed-install doctor
checks.
- Added a private managed payload store, verified manifest/marker
ownership, exclusive mutation locks, atomic manifest/current/shim
writes, retained previous payloads, and provenance validation.
- Added npm and GitHub-ref install sources with exact target resolution,
registry isolation, database backup, side-by-side verification, atomic
activation, service restart coordination, and failure rollback.
- Made managed-update backups report actionable service-start and
`--no-backup` recovery guidance for unreachable databases, while clean
never-onboarded instances skip an empty backup.
- Added systemd user and launchd service definitions, status/health/log
commands, single-instance coordination, stale-port recovery, and
explicit sudo/lingering consent handling.
- Added the `scripts/install.sh` bootstrap path with checked two-stage
downloads, pinned public npm registry usage, platform checks,
dry-run/non-interactive controls, and Docker fixtures.
- Added embedded Postgres/native bootstrap integration,
hot-restart/systemd-notify serving support, passive update notices,
configuration contracts, README/CLI/install documentation, and focused
regression tests.
- Security re-review should explicitly re-verify: (1)
`addManagedPathBlock`/`removeManagedPathBlock` reject symlinked or
non-regular rc files, assert current-user ownership, preserve
restrictive modes, and replace atomically; (2) managed shim replacement
rejects unsafe parents, foreign-owned or multiply linked files, and uses
checked atomic replacement; (3) the shell installer and sudo path
preserve explicit consent and checked downloads; and (4) installed
service/runtime serving remains bound to the validated managed shim and
instance configuration.
## Verification
- `bash -n scripts/install.sh scripts/clean-install-git.sh
scripts/clean-install-npm.sh scripts/test-install-sh-docker.sh`
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/install-store.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/install-command.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/managed-install-check.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/onboard-service.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/service-health-check.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/service-manager.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/update-command.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/update-notice.test.ts
packages/db/src/embedded-postgres-native.test.ts` — 9 files, 66 tests
passed
- `pnpm --dir cli typecheck`
- `pnpm --dir cli build`
- Follow-up verification: `pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/update-command.test.ts` (14/14), `pnpm --dir cli
typecheck`, `pnpm --dir cli build`, and `pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck`.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Full `pnpm test:run` exercised all suites; an injected static AWS
credential changed one unrelated doctor expectation, which passed when
those credentials were removed. A second run cleared that case and
exposed stale pre-existing adapter-utils `dist` output; rebuilding
`@paperclipai/adapter-utils` made the isolated test pass. The updated PR
CI is the authoritative clean-workspace full-suite run.
## Risks
- Installer/update code writes executable shims, symlinks, shell rc
blocks, service definitions, and managed payloads; ownership,
regular-file, symlink, hard-link, marker, and path-containment checks
fail closed before destructive changes.
- The bootstrap installer executes downloaded tooling; downloads are
staged and checked before execution, npm traffic is pinned to the public
registry, and non-interactive privileged behavior requires explicit
consent.
- Linux lingering may invoke `sudo`; the command is surfaced and
confirmed before execution, and unsupported service managers fall back
to foreground-run guidance.
- Database migrations remain forward-only; payload rollback does not
reverse migrations, so managed updates create a backup before activation
unless explicitly disabled.
- Service restart and runtime serving touch process/port ownership;
lifecycle locks, health/version checks, and stable-shim service
definitions reduce split-brain and stale-process risk.
> 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 agents using GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6-sol, with
reasoning, repository/API access, shell execution, and test tooling. The
runtime did not expose a reliable 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 Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The database layer uses embedded Postgres for isolated test runs
> - A port probe can fail when another process takes the same port
before Postgres binds it
> - That race can make a test fail even when the code under test is fine
> - This pull request adds bounded retry and clearer error text to the
embedded Postgres start path
> - The benefit is more stable tests and faster diagnosis when startup
still fails
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change.
This PR fixes a flaky embedded Postgres test start path.
The helper can lose a port between probe and bind.
This PR retries the start with a fresh port and a fresh data directory.
Related public context:
- Refs #7259
- Refs #9769
## What Changed
- Add bounded retry around embedded Postgres initialization and start.
- Stop each failed attempt and remove its data directory before the next
attempt.
- Capture Postgres output in the thrown error so the failure is easier
to read.
- Add unit coverage for retry success, retry exhaustion, and the
improved error text.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run
src/test-embedded-postgres.test.ts src/embedded-postgres-error.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run` passed in the worktree
after the change.
- `worktree.test.ts > quarantines copied live execution state in seeded
worktree databases` passed.
- A real cluster loop of 100 starts passed with 0 failures.
## Risks
- The retry can hide a real startup fault until the fifth try.
- The bound keeps the wait short, and the final error still shows the
captured Postgres log.
- This change only affects the embedded Postgres test start helper.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool-use 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] 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
> - 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 app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Every company is auto-provisioned a set of built-in agents (e.g. the
Summarizer), and a startup reconciler keeps that set correct across
every company on boot.
> - Provisioning marks these agents with
`metadata.paperclipBuiltInAgent.key`, but nothing in the database
enforced one active agent per `(company, key)` —
`provision()`/`ensure()` did a check-then-insert with no guard.
> - Two concurrent server processes (e.g. a `tsx watch` double-boot)
could both read "no summarizer exists" and both insert, leaving a
company with duplicate built-in agents plus paired orphan pending
`hire_agent` approvals.
> - That data blemish then became a recurring outage: `findSingleAgent`
throws on >1 marked row, and because the throw escaped
`reconcileBuiltInAgentsOnStartup`'s sequential loop, **every company
after the affected one was silently skipped** on each boot — no
auto-provisioning, no default grants — until manual DB surgery.
> - This pull request closes the race at the database level and makes
reconciliation self-healing and fault-isolated.
> - The benefit is that concurrent provisioning can no longer create
duplicates, and even pre-existing duplicates are resolved automatically
instead of bricking startup reconciliation for unrelated companies.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- [x] I searched the GitHub PR list (open and recently closed) for
similar PRs and confirmed this is not a duplicate.
No public GitHub issue exists; describing the bug in-PR (bug-report
shape):
**What happened**
A dev instance booted with two concurrent server processes. Both ran
built-in agent provisioning for the same company at the same time, and
the check-then-insert in `provision()`/`ensure()`
(`server/src/services/built-in-agents.ts`) let both writers see "no
summarizer exists" and each create one — the company ended up with two
identical Summarizer agents (identical `paperclipBuiltInAgent` markers)
plus two paired pending `hire_agent` approvals.
From then on, **every** server boot logged:
```
ERROR: startup reconciliation of built-in agents failed
Multiple built-in agents found for summarizer (built_in_agent_duplicate_instance)
```
because `findSingleAgent` throws on >1 marked row rather than resolving
the duplicate. Worse, `reconcileBuiltInAgentsOnStartup` loops companies
sequentially and the throw escaped the loop, so every company *after*
the affected one was silently skipped on every boot.
**Expected behavior**
1. Concurrent provisioning must not create duplicate built-in agents
(there was no DB uniqueness constraint on the marker key per company).
2. Reconciliation should be resilient: if duplicates exist anyway,
self-heal (keep the oldest row, terminate the newer dupe, cancel its
orphan pending `hire_agent` approval), and never let one bad company
abort reconciliation for the rest.
**Steps to reproduce**
- Race two `provision(companyId, "summarizer")` calls for a company with
board approval for new agents enabled (or simulate a double-boot); both
insert.
- Restart the server → startup reconciliation error fires, companies
later in the loop are never reconciled.
## What Changed
**Part 1 — stop creating duplicates**
- Migration `0192_built_in_agent_unique_marker` adds a **partial unique
index** on `(company_id, metadata->'paperclipBuiltInAgent'->>'key')`
where the marker exists and `status != 'terminated'`. It first resolves
any pre-existing duplicates (keep oldest by `created_at`, terminate
newer dupes, cancel their orphan pending `hire_agent` approvals, revoke
their API keys) so the index can be created on already-affected
instances.
- `provision()`/`ensure()` now catch the losing race's `23505` unique
violation (walking the driver's wrapped cause chain) and re-resolve to
the winning row instead of surfacing the error.
**Part 2 — resilient reconciliation**
- `findSingleAgent` self-heals: keeps the oldest marked row, terminates
the newer duplicates, and cancels each one's orphan pending `hire_agent`
approval (idempotent) instead of throwing.
- `reconcileBuiltInAgentsOnStartup` isolates per-company failures in
both loops so one bad company can't abort reconciliation for the rest;
it surfaces a `companyFailures` count in the startup log.
- Adds `approvalService.cancel()` for system-initiated cancellation of
an orphan approval.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` → numbering +
safety checks pass.
- `packages/db` migration test (real embedded Postgres) — seeds
pre-index duplicate state, runs the migration, asserts dupes resolved +
index enforced: **1 passed**.
- `server` `built-in-agents.test.ts` — self-heal, concurrent races
(plain and board-gated), and startup
self-heal-without-aborting-later-companies: **34 passed**.
```
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/built-in-agent-unique-marker-migration.test.ts
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts
```
## Risks
- **Migration safety**: the migration mutates data (terminates duplicate
rows, cancels their orphan pending approvals, revokes their API keys)
before creating the index. It keeps the oldest row per `(company, key)`
and only touches non-terminated marked rows; the destructive step is
covered by the migration test and the safety-check baseline. On a clean
instance it is a no-op cleanup followed by `CREATE UNIQUE INDEX IF NOT
EXISTS`.
- Otherwise low risk: the unique index is partial (excludes terminated
rows, so re-provisioning after a termination stays possible), and the
conflict handling degrades gracefully to re-resolving the existing
winner.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), 1M context window, extended
thinking, with tool use.
## 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 control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and their work.
> - Artifacts and documents are first-class outputs, but users need a
personal way to keep important documents easy to find.
> - Existing resource memberships already model per-user starred
projects and agents with company scoping and activity logging.
> - Documents lacked the equivalent membership model, route, and
artifact filtering behavior.
> - The shared membership contract also needs to remain safe for
existing UI project/agent mutation helpers when documents become a
recognized resource type.
> - This pull request extends the existing resource-membership system
with per-user document stars and a starred artifacts view.
> - The benefit is a company-scoped, idempotent server foundation for a
dedicated starred-documents experience without weakening authorization
or artifact filtering semantics.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Problem / Motivation
Board users cannot star individual documents, and the company artifacts
API cannot return only the current user's starred documents.
### Proposed Solution
Add company/user-scoped document memberships, a board-only document star
route, document membership data in the shared contract, and a
`starred=true` artifacts filter.
### Alternatives Considered
A document column was rejected because stars are per-user; a separate
star API was rejected because projects and agents already use resource
memberships.
### Roadmap Alignment
This extends the existing Artifacts & Work Products roadmap area and
does not duplicate another open pull request found in the repository
search.
## What Changed
- Added the `document_memberships` schema and migration with
company/user/document uniqueness and starred ordering.
- Extended shared resource-membership and artifact-query contracts for
documents and `starred=true`.
- Added company-scoped document star/unstar service and board-only route
behavior with activity logging.
- Added starred document artifact filtering, including user-authored
documents, document kinds, cursor ordering, and incompatible-kind
handling.
- Preserved idempotency under concurrent star requests and synchronized
UI membership defaults/helpers with the expanded contract.
- Added focused shared, route, service, and UI regression coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/resource-memberships.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-artifacts-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/resource-memberships-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarStarredProjects.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- The migration adds a new membership table and non-concurrent indexes;
migration safety gates pass with the repository's established policy.
- The starred artifacts query intentionally returns only documents and
relaxes the normal agent-authored/system-kind predicates for documents
the current user explicitly starred.
- Document membership mutations remain board-user-only; agent callers
receive no document-star capability.
> 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; runtime model ID and context-window size were not
exposed to this session. Reasoning, repository tool use, code execution,
and test 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
> - Task watchdogs review issue subtrees when no run or queued wake
keeps work live
> - Pending human interactions and approvals are valid stopped states
that still need one watchdog review
> - The existing fingerprint included volatile activity timestamps, so
unchanged stopped trees could wake repeatedly after comments, documents,
work products, or sibling completions
> - This pull request fingerprints only review-material leaf and wait
state, persists the reviewed snapshot, and suppresses shrink-only
repeats
> - The benefit is one review per materially new stopped state without
weakening liveness classification or hiding human waits
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### What happened?
Task-watchdog stop fingerprints changed for metadata-only activity and
completed siblings, producing duplicate wakes after an unchanged stop
had already been reviewed.
### Expected behavior
Pending interactions and approvals remain classified as stopped, but a
reviewed stopped state only wakes again when waits, non-terminal leaves,
status, assignment, or blockers gain material changes.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Review a stopped watched subtree with a pending human wait or
multiple non-terminal stopped leaves.
2. Add only comment/document/work-product activity, or complete one
stopped sibling without changing the wait set.
3. Observe a duplicate wake from the timestamp-heavy fingerprint.
Related public work: Refs #9452 for overlapping task-watchdog service
edits and #10043 for related no-op fingerprint suppression.
## What Changed
- Added fingerprint v2 over non-terminal material leaves plus
subtree-wide pending wait ids, excluding volatile timestamps while
retaining them in wake context.
- Added nullable observed/reviewed JSONB stop snapshots and shrink-only
reviewed-state suppression with legacy exact-fingerprint fallback.
- Added pending interaction kinds and approval ids to watchdog wake
context, review comments, and comment metadata.
- Added classifier and scheduler coverage for waiting-leaf liveness,
metadata stability, sibling shrink suppression, material changes,
snapshot promotion, legacy rows, and unchanged idempotency keys.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts
src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts` — 2 files, 36 tests
passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed.
## Risks
- Fingerprint version 2 intentionally re-fingerprints every currently
stopped watched tree once after deployment, causing a one-time wake
burst before the new reviewed snapshots are established.
- Migration `0191_task_watchdog_stop_snapshots.sql` only adds two
nullable JSONB columns with no backfill; legacy rows continue
exact-fingerprint behavior until a post-deploy review promotes a
snapshot.
- PR #9452 edits the same service file; whichever lands second may need
a trivial rebase.
> 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-5.6-sol`, high reasoning mode, with
repository tool use and code execution. The runtime did not expose a
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
- [ ] 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
> - Status cards summarize changing company work and watch issues so
later changes can produce useful deltas
> - A summary can explicitly reference issues that are important to the
update even when those issues do not match the card's configured queries
> - Previously, those referenced issues were not retained in the watched
set, so their later status, assignee, or comment changes could be missed
> - The watched snapshot must avoid artificial additions or removals
caused only by a summary changing which issues it references
> - This pull request resolves issue references when a summary is
written, persists them, and joins them to the watched snapshot with
stable delta semantics
> - The benefit is that status cards continue tracking the exact issues
their latest update called out while keeping follow-up updates relevant
and non-duplicative
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### 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 status-card summary explicitly referenced an issue by identifier
or `/issues/<uuid>` URL, that issue was not automatically retained in
the card's watched set unless it independently matched a configured
query. Later status, assignee, or comment changes to an issue
highlighted by the latest update could therefore be omitted.
### Expected behavior
References in the latest summary should resolve only within the card's
company, appear in dry runs and the watched-issues UI, count and
fingerprint like query matches, and enter or leave the watched set
without artificial added/removed deltas already represented by the
summary change.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Create a status card whose query does not match a second issue in the
same company.
2. Write a summary that references the second issue by identifier or
issue URL.
3. Inspect the card's watched count or Watched issues tab.
4. Change the referenced issue's status, assignee, or comments and run
the next update.
5. Before this change, the referenced issue is absent from the watched
snapshot and its later change does not produce the expected delta.
### Paperclip version or commit
- Reproduced on `master` before this PR (base commit `762ce5b4ef`).
### Deployment mode
- Local dev (`pnpm dev`), built from source.
### Agent adapter(s) involved
- Not adapter-specific (core bug).
### Database mode
- Embedded Postgres test environment; the schema change uses standard
PostgreSQL JSONB.
### Access context
- Board (human operator).
## What Changed
- Added migration `0191` and schema support for persisted
`status_cards.mentioned_issue_ids`.
- Resolved summary references by issue identifier or `/issues/<uuid>`
URL within the status card's company when summaries are written.
- Joined mentioned issues into watched counts and fingerprints so later
status, assignee, and comment changes generate normal update deltas.
- Suppressed artificial added/removed deltas when the latest summary
starts or stops mentioning an issue.
- Added `mentionedIssues` to dry-run responses and a “Mentioned in the
latest update” group in the Watched issues tab.
- Updated the summarizer prompt to explain that referenced issues
automatically join the watched set.
- Added focused server and UI coverage for reference resolution,
snapshot behavior, deltas, API responses, and rendering.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/status-cards.test.ts
src/__tests__/status-card-update-engine.test.ts` — 31 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/StatusCards/StatusCardTile.test.tsx` — 11 tests passed.
- Earlier implementation verification also passed database/shared/server
typechecks, UI `tsc -b`, the broader StatusCards UI test set, and
embedded-Postgres migration application.
### Visual Verification
- Greptile T-Rex ran Playwright browser checks successfully and captured
the Status Card drawer Watched tab showing the new “Mentioned in the
latest update” grouping:
https://app.greptile.com/trex/runs/15796101/artifacts
## Risks
- The migration adds a nullable JSONB column and is backward-compatible;
existing cards have no mentioned issues until their next summary write.
- Reference extraction is company-scoped to prevent cross-company issue
association.
- Watched counts and future fingerprints change for cards whose latest
summaries reference issues; tests cover additions, removals, and
suppression of spurious deltas.
- This targeted status-card fix does not introduce a new roadmap
subsystem or external integration.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Fable 5 (Paperclip model alias; exact underlying
provider model ID and context window were not recorded in the
implementation task metadata), with extended reasoning, tool use, and
code execution.
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (runtime model identifier and context window
not exposed to this task) prepared the PR, rebased the branch, and ran
focused verification with terminal 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)
- [ ] 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 ongoing work.
> - Status cards turn a standing question into recurring,
agent-generated summaries on the board.
> - The existing setup split intent across a watch prompt and separate
update instructions, which made creation and later behavior harder to
understand.
> - A status card should have one durable source of truth for both
deciding what to watch and telling the summarizer what each update must
contain.
> - This pull request makes the card prompt that source of truth,
simplifies creation to one step, and lets operators choose the running
agent immediately.
> - The benefit is a smaller mental model, fewer configuration modes,
and consistent update instructions throughout the card lifecycle.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Status cards currently require operators to express the same intent in
two places: the watch prompt and optional update instructions with
append/replace/none modes. This feature simplifies the experimental
status-card workflow so a single prompt defines both the watch query and
every generated update. The create flow must also support selecting the
responsible agent without a second setup step.
Related prior status-card work: #10101.
## What Changed
- Use the status card's single prompt to compile the watch query and
directly instruct every summary update.
- Add migration `0190_status_card_single_prompt` to remove
`status_cards.instructions_mode` and `status_cards.instructions`.
- Add `agentId` to `createStatusCardSchema`, validate company
membership, and default new cards to the built-in Summarizer.
- Replace the two-step create flow with one prompt-and-agent dialog and
extract a shared `SummarizerAgentSelect` for create/settings surfaces.
- Remove the extra-instructions settings section, reset incremental
history when the prompt changes, and rename the board page to "Status".
- Update the bundled `status-card-query` skill and board-operator
documentation, then regenerate the skills catalog manifest.
## Verification
- Server status-card suites: 29/29 passing.
- UI `StatusCards` suites: 22/22 passing.
- Skills catalog suite: 20/20 passing.
- `tsc -b` passes for server, UI, shared, and database packages.
- `pnpm check:migrations` passes.
- Light and dark mode screenshots cover the new create dialog and
settings tab.
## Risks
- Migration `0190` intentionally drops existing separate instruction
text. Existing card prompts remain and become the update instructions
under the new model; status cards are experimental and feature-flagged.
- Prompt edits now reset the incremental summary chain and trigger a
full rebuild, which is intentional because the prompt is also the update
contract.
- Agent selection is company-scoped; invalid agent ids return a
validation error rather than creating a misrouted card.
> 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
- Implementation: Anthropic Claude via the `claude_local` adapter, agent
label "Claude Fable 5"; extended reasoning, tool use, and code
execution. The exact provider model id and context-window value were not
retained in the task metadata.
- PR preparation: OpenAI GPT-5.4 through Codex CLI, with reasoning,
repository inspection, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API 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)
- [ ] 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip includes built-in database backup and retention behavior
as part of its operational reliability surface.
> - The retention implementation lives in
`packages/db/src/backup-lib.ts`.
> - Monthly pruning is intended to keep the newest backup per retained
calendar month.
> - The current cutoff uses a fixed 30-day approximation, which deletes
January backups too early when the current month has 31 days.
> - This pull request switches the monthly cutoff to calendar-month
boundaries instead of a fixed day multiplier.
> - The benefit is that monthly retention now matches the documented
calendar-month behavior and does not prune valid backups prematurely.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#3713
Two other pull requests implemented the same fix and have already been
closed as duplicates of this one:
- #3798 — same author's later take. Anchors the cutoff to the 1st
correctly, but mutates the date in local time and leaves `monthKey` on
local time, and unit-tests the helper in isolation rather than end to
end.
- #4031 — decrements the month without anchoring to the 1st, so
partial-month drift and a `setMonth` day-overflow edge case remain. No
tests.
## What Changed
- Replaced the fixed `30 * 24h` monthly retention cutoff with a
calendar-month cutoff anchored to the first day of the earliest retained
month.
- Added a regression test that freezes `Date.now()` at March 31 and
proves the newest January backup is retained when `monthlyMonths=2`.
- Kept the rest of the pruning behavior unchanged: daily and weekly
tiers still use their existing windows and bucket selection rules.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/backup-lib.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec tsc --noEmit`
- Note: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` hits an
environment-specific `check:migrations` runtime failure on this host
(`Cannot find module ./cjs/index.cjs from ` via Bun), so I used plain
`tsc --noEmit` to validate the code changes themselves.
## Risks
- Low risk. This only changes the monthly retention cutoff calculation.
- The pruning buckets are still selected the same way; the fix only
widens the retained month window to align with calendar-month semantics.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex GPT-5 coding agent with terminal 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 searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---
<sub>Edited by commitperclip during triage: added the **Linked Issues**
section (`Fixes #3713`) and the duplicate-PR search line the PR template
requires. The duplicate search was performed by the triage pipeline,
which grouped this PR with #3798 and #4031 and selected this one as the
canonical fix. Everything else is the author's original
description.</sub>
---------
Co-authored-by: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies.
> - Operators need a board-level way to monitor a changing slice of
company work without repeatedly rebuilding filters or reading raw task
threads.
> - Existing summaries are useful snapshots, but they do not provide a
dedicated query-backed card with refresh policy, change tracking, update
history, and per-update cost visibility.
> - The capability needs to be safe to evaluate before it becomes part
of the default product surface.
> - This pull request adds end-to-end experimental Status Cards, from
schema and query compilation through update orchestration and operator
UI.
> - The entire feature is gated behind the `enableStatusCards`
experimental toggle, including its route and sidebar entry.
> - The benefit is a governed, inspectable way to keep focused
operational rollups current while preserving explicit controls over
refresh frequency and spend.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting (`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `server/`, `ui/`, and
bundled skills/docs).
### Problem or motivation
Operators cannot currently define a reusable natural-language view of
company work, compile it into an inspectable query, and keep its summary
current as matching issues change. Rebuilding filters and rereading task
threads makes board-level monitoring repetitive and hides the
relationship between source changes, refresh cost, and the resulting
summary.
### Proposed solution
Add experimental Status Cards that compile operator intent into a query,
summarize matched work, record each update, expose
manual/interval/reactive refresh policies and costs, and preserve the
last good result across stale, updating, paused, and error states. The
capability is off by default and fully gated behind `enableStatusCards`,
including its route and navigation entry.
### Alternatives considered
- Extend existing one-off summaries: rejected because status cards
require persistent query provenance, refresh policy, update history, and
card-specific cost controls.
- Add a dashboard-only filter widget: rejected because it would not
provide governed background refresh, an update ledger, or an inspectable
compile pipeline.
- Ship the surface by default: rejected in favor of an experimental
toggle while behavior and operator value are evaluated.
### Roadmap alignment
This advances Paperclip’s board-level execution visibility and
output-first product goals. `ROADMAP.md` was checked and no duplicate
status-card initiative was found.
### Additional context
No related open PR was found in the public GitHub search for status
cards. The PR-only design wireframes were removed from the repository
after review; the published prototype remains external to the production
source tree.
## What Changed
- Added company-scoped status-card schema, CRUD APIs, compile
provenance, update ledger, shared contracts, validators, and OpenAPI
coverage.
- Added the text-to-query compile pipeline, bundled `status-card-query`
agent skill, query versioning, and authorized write-back flow.
- Added the experimental board, create flow, lifecycle tiles,
detail/settings/debug drawers, archived view, routing, navigation, and
instance setting.
- Added a change-gated update engine with manual, interval, and reactive
refresh policies, trigger selection, active hours, and daily token caps.
- Added per-update token/cost recording, today and lifetime rollups, and
policy-derived cost previews.
- Added operator documentation and agent-authoring hardening for compile
and update behavior.
- Added PR-prep integration coverage for settings/startup wiring and
replaced raw UI values with design-system tokens.
- Removed the PR-only `design/pap-15023-status-cards` wireframe
artifacts so the repository contains only production feature assets.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passes on the PR head; includes `ui` `tsc -b`
passing. The UI compile gate was also independently recorded as passing
at `6d7f3cf96b` on July 23, 2026.
- `pnpm build` — passes.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passes with all three gates clean.
- `pnpm test:run` — 2,880 tests passed and 1 skipped; the sole failure
was an unrelated 10-second `afterAll` database-cleanup timeout in
`execution-workspaces-service.test.ts`.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` — passes on
immediate focused rerun (25/25).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` — passes (31/31).
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/StatusCards/StatusCardSettingsForm.test.tsx
src/pages/StatusCards/StatusCardTile.test.tsx
src/pages/StatusCards/format.test.ts src/lib/status-card-state.test.ts`
— passes (26/26).
- Recorded pre-PR QA: compile-pipeline e2e PASS; full lifecycle and cost
QA PASS; security re-review PASS after write-back hardening; UX
approved.
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/status-card-migrations.test.ts`
— passes; reapplies migrations `0185`–`0189` against an already-migrated
embedded Postgres database.
- `pnpm --filter /db check:migrations` — passes migration numbering and
safety checks.
- `pnpm --filter /db typecheck` — passes.
- Merged current `origin/master` on July 24, 2026 with no conflicts;
migrations `0185`–`0189` remain unclaimed on master.
## Risks
- The feature introduces five database migrations and a new background
update path; all new DDL is repeat-safe after partial application,
migration numbering/safety checks pass, and update execution is
company-scoped and change-gated.
- Natural-language compilation can produce invalid or overly broad
queries; compile provenance, query validation, debug visibility, and
version history make failures inspectable and recoverable.
- Reactive or interval refresh could increase spend; active hours, max
refresh frequency, daily token caps, per-update cost records, and
budget-paused states bound and expose that risk.
- The branch name contains an internal execution identifier because it
is a fixed handoff branch; it was intentionally not renamed or rebased
per the release handoff instructions.
- Overall rollout risk is limited because the route, navigation,
services, and UI are disabled by default behind `enableStatusCards`.
> 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-5.5 with reasoning, repository tool use, shell
execution, GitHub CLI, and test/build execution. The runtime did not
expose a 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; the fixed execution-workspace
identifier is documented as an authorized handoff exception
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass, with the one cleanup
timeout passing on focused rerun
- [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 coordinate
AI-agent companies.
> - Issue status transitions determine whether work keeps moving or
silently stalls.
> - A blocked issue previously could rely on prose alone, leaving the
intended unblock owner unstructured and unnotified.
> - Existing blocker-attention classification could identify stalled
chains, but the signal was not delivered to the board attention feed.
> - Blocked transitions also need rollout-safe deduplication so upgrades
do not notify for historical issues and repeated processing does not
create notification storms.
> - This pull request adds structured unblock descriptors, prospective
transition timestamps, owner delivery, and board attention routing with
focused authorization controls.
> - The benefit is that newly blocked work has an explicit, routable
next action without weakening company boundaries or allowing agents to
inject arbitrary human attention items.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related documentation PR: #10094.
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/db`, and `packages/shared`.
### Problem or motivation
An issue can enter `blocked` without a machine-readable unblock path.
Prose-only ownership does not reliably wake the responsible agent or
surface human-owned work, while the existing `blockerAttention`
classifier is not delivered to an operator-facing attention feed.
### Proposed solution
Require new transitions into `blocked` to have unresolved blockers, a
pending interaction/approval, or a structured `{ owner, action }`
descriptor. Notify an allowed owner once per prospective transition,
route human-owned cases to board attention, and leave pre-rollout
blocked issues untouched.
### Alternatives considered
- Keep prose-only blockers: rejected because ownership remains
unroutable.
- Backfill all historical blocked issues: rejected because upgrades
would create notification storms.
- Let agents target arbitrary users or the board: rejected after
security review because it creates an attention-injection channel.
### Roadmap alignment
Aligns with `ROADMAP.md` → “Enforced Outcomes (watchdogs, recovery
actions, review gates)” by making blocked work carry an explicit
continuation path.
### Additional context
The implementation is prospective-only and deduplicated per blocked
transition. Agent-authored descriptors are limited to the acting agent;
board actors retain human-owner routing.
## What Changed
- Added persisted unblock descriptors and prospective blocked-transition
delivery timestamps with an idempotent migration.
- Added shared types and validation for board, user, and agent unblock
owners.
- Enforced valid blocked transitions and same-company owner validation
in the issue update route.
- Restricted agent-authored descriptors to the acting agent itself,
preventing board/user attention injection by compromised agents.
- Added one-per-transition agent wake delivery and prospective-only
rollout gating.
- Routed human-owned blocker attention into the board attention feed.
- Added focused tests for validation, prospective delivery, flap
deduplication, attention routing, route authorization, and stop-relay
compatibility.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routable-blocked.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`
- `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID= AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY= pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
## Risks
- Behavioral shift: new `blocked` transitions without a real blocker,
pending governed action, or structured descriptor now return `422`.
- Notification abuse is constrained by same-company validation, agent
self-only routing, prospective rollout gating, and transition-scoped
deduplication.
- Migration risk is low: columns are additive, nullable, and use `IF NOT
EXISTS`; historical blocked issues are not backfilled or notified.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex CLI with GPT-5.4, reasoning-enabled tool use and code
execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window value.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is an open-source AI agent management platform; its test
suite spans a `server` package that mounts real embedded Postgres
databases in `beforeAll`/`afterAll` hooks
> - The `server` package CI shard runs all ~93 suites serially
(`maxWorkers=1`) on a loaded CI host; each suite boots and tears down
its own embedded Postgres in hook callbacks
> - vitest's default `hookTimeout` is 10 seconds; under load, graceful
embedded-Postgres shutdown occasionally crosses that threshold
> - This produces intermittent `Error: Hook timed out in 10000ms`
failures in `afterAll` hooks — not test assertion failures — and the
suites pass on re-run, making them textbook flaky tests
> - Inspecting `embedded-postgres@18.1.0-beta.16` shows that `stop()`
takes no argument (no fast-shutdown mode), SIGINTs postgres (already
PostgreSQL "fast shutdown"), and resolves only on the child's `exit`
event with no internal time bound
> - Two targeted fixes: (1) raise `hookTimeout` and `teardownTimeout` to
30 s in `server/vitest.config.ts` — one config change that eliminates
the flake for all ~93 suites at once; (2) wrap `stop()` in a 5 s bounded
`Promise.race` in the test helper so a slow shutdown can never hang the
hook regardless of OS scheduling variance
> - This PR changes only test-infra and test-config; no production-code
behavior changes
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this flake. Inline bug description
(bug report template):
**What happened?**
The `General tests (server (N/3))` CI shards intermittently fail with
`Error: Hook timed out in 10000ms` in `afterAll` hooks and pass on
re-run. Every test assertion passes; only the teardown hook exceeds
vitest's default timeout.
**Expected behavior**
CI passes reliably. Teardown timeouts should not be a source of flake.
**Steps to reproduce**
Run the server test suite repeatedly on a loaded host or in CI with
`maxWorkers=1` — the shard occasionally crosses 10 s in `afterAll`
during embedded-Postgres shutdown.
**Paperclip version**
`master`, any build that includes `server/vitest.config.ts` without an
explicit `hookTimeout`.
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted (CI).
## What Changed
- **`server/vitest.config.ts`** — added `hookTimeout: 30000` and
`teardownTimeout: 30000`. Removes flake across all ~93 server suites at
once. 30 s gives generous headroom over observed worst-case teardown
while still catching a genuinely hung hook.
- **`packages/db/src/test-embedded-postgres.ts`** — added
`stopEmbeddedPostgresBounded()`, a 5 s `Promise.race` wrapper around
`stop()`. Applied at all three call sites inside `cleanup()`. Data dir
is still removed unconditionally; errors are still swallowed; the
null-instance guard is preserved. Existing behavior unchanged except the
shutdown can no longer block indefinitely.
## Verification
- `tsc --noEmit` clean on `packages/db` (built against worktree-local
`shared`)
- `packages/db` `client.test.ts` passes 14/14 — boots embedded Postgres
and exercises the bounded teardown via `cleanup()` in `afterEach`
- Standalone bounded-race semantics verified: hang resolves at the 5 s
bound; late or immediate `stop()` rejection swallowed; no unhandled
rejection; null-instance path safe
- CI: all 3 server shards + split-verify lane (Async-Verification Gate)
expected green after this PR
```bash
# Reproduce the teardown test locally:
cd packages/db && npx vitest run src/client.test.ts
# Type-check packages/db:
npx tsc --noEmit -p packages/db/tsconfig.json
```
## Risks
Low risk. No product-code changes — test-infra and test-config only. The
vitest timeout increase is additive (raises the ceiling; never lowers
it). The bounded race wrapper preserves prior teardown behavior exactly:
data dir always removed, errors always swallowed, stop is still
attempted. A worst-case outcome is that a genuinely hung `stop()` now
surfaces as a test timeout at 30 s instead of 10 s — still caught, just
later.
## Model Used
- **Provider:** Anthropic
- **Model:** Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`)
- **Context window:** 200 k tokens
- **Capabilities:** tool use, code execution, extended reasoning
- **Mode:** Paperclip agent heartbeat (autonomous execution with human
board oversight)
## 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: Harold Kim <harold@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
> - Connections is the subsystem that lets operators connect external
apps and govern which subjects may use those credentials
> - #9958 established the v3 schema foundation and #9981 adds the
AppDefinition catalog layer
> - The runtime still needs subject-aware authorization state, scoped
key handling, and API/OpenAPI routes so connected apps can actually be
granted and used safely
> - This pull request adds the runtime grants/authorization behavior on
top of the catalog branch, while keeping unrelated dependency and
workflow sync commits out of the stack
> - The benefit is a reviewable runtime layer that can land after the
catalog PR, then unblock the wizard and orchestrator cutover work
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9958 and #9981.
Refs #9981.
No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. This is the runtime layer
for the Connections v3 stack and is rebased onto `master` after #9981
landed.
## What Changed
- Adds the connection user authorization state migration and schema
wiring.
- Adds shared runtime subject/grant types and validators.
- Adds runtime grant and scoped key behavior in the tool-access service.
- Adds runtime route coverage and registers the routes in OpenAPI.
- Replays only the Connections runtime commits on top of the catalog
branch, dropping unrelated sync/dependency history from the prior closed
runtime PR.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/validators/tool-access.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
## Risks
- Medium: runtime grant enforcement is security-sensitive and must fail
closed for unknown key scopes.
- Migration ordering depends on the schema and catalog layers already
merged through #9958 and #9981.
- This PR is rebased and retargeted to `master` with runtime-only
commits.
> 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 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 control plane people use to manage AI-agent
companies and their work
> - The activity log is the generic audit spine for mutations across the
control plane
> - Activity rows identify agents and runs, but they do not persist the
responsible human upstream
> - Relying only on run joins loses attribution after run pruning and
misses agent API-key actions outside a run
> - This pull request resolves responsible-user attribution when each
activity row is written and stores it directly
> - The benefit is durable, queryable agent audit feeds without
rewriting historical provenance
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Problem or motivation
Agent activity records do not persist the responsible user, so
attribution can disappear when runs are pruned and no-run API-key
mutations cannot be attributed correctly.
### Proposed solution
Resolve attribution for each new activity row from the run, related
issue, active agent API key, or company default, in that order, and
persist the result directly.
### Alternatives considered
Read-time joins alone were rejected because pruned runs lose durable
attribution and out-of-run agent-key actions have no run to join.
Historical backfill was rejected because it would invent provenance.
### Roadmap alignment
This strengthens the durable audit-trail direction described in
`ROADMAP.md` without adding a new product surface.
## What Changed
- Added nullable `activity_log.responsible_user_id` plus
company/agent/time and company/responsible-user/time indexes.
- Added an idempotent forward-only migration with no historical
backfill.
- Added centralized write-time resolution: heartbeat run → issue
attribution → active agent API key → company default.
- Propagated authenticated API-key IDs through existing request-backed
`logActivity()` calls.
- Added unit coverage for every fallback and an embedded-Postgres
assertion for the no-run API-key stamping path.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/activity-log-responsible-user.test.ts
src/__tests__/authz-company-access.test.ts`
- Initial focused verification: 25 tests passed; migration safety
passed.
- Follow-up regression verification: 54 focused
attribution/company-skill/environment/issue-tree/tool-gateway tests
passed; server typecheck passed.
- GitHub: full build, typecheck, server shards, serialized suites, e2e,
security, and policy checks passed.
## Risks
- Adding two indexes to an existing large table can hold a write lock
while the transactional migration runs. The migration safety
suppressions document why `CONCURRENTLY` is unavailable under the
current Drizzle migration runner.
- Historical rows remain nullable by design; this avoids inventing
provenance and keeps the migration forward-only.
- API-key attribution requires request-backed activity call sites to
pass the authenticated key ID; this PR mechanically updates the existing
actor-based activity calls and covers the no-run path with integration
testing.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5.4`; context-window size was not exposed by the
runtime. Medium reasoning with repository editing, terminal execution,
and test execution capabilities was used.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have 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 coordinate
AI-agent companies
> - Agents, routines, productivity review, and recovery services can all
create or re-trigger work
> - Repeated heartbeats or catch-up cycles can produce duplicate tasks
or repeat recovery actions before prior work is visible
> - The base duplicate-create and routine catch-up coalescing work has
now landed on `master` via related PRs while this PR was being prepared
> - This pull request carries the remaining hardening: bounded
idempotency retention, recovery cooldown/throttle fixes,
productivity-review query batching and ordering fixes, and regression
coverage
> - The benefit is fewer duplicate tasks, safer retries, and enough
provenance to diagnose any future recurrence
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Agents can retry issue creation after ambiguous responses or
independently recreate the same child title, while recovery and
short-interval routine catch-up paths can repeat before prior work
settles. This can produce visible duplicate tasks and makes the
originating heartbeat difficult to identify.
Related work: Refs #8356 for caller-supplied issue-create idempotency
and Refs #9224 for plugin-scoped issue-create idempotency. Prior related
PR: #6936. The base issue-create deduplication and routine catch-up
coalescing pieces have since landed on `master` via #9650 and #9649;
this PR remains as the follow-up hardening stack on top of those
changes.
## What Changed
- Add 7-day retention for issue-create idempotency claims with indexed,
batch-limited cleanup so the claim table does not grow forever.
- Preserve recovery cooldown intent after terminal recovery actions are
closed, and throttle repeated source-scoped recovery work.
- Batch productivity-review source-activity checks to avoid repeated
per-source queries while keeping the no-action suppression behavior.
- Order productivity-review no-action streak windows by review creation
time, matching the window semantics even when completion timestamps are
out of order.
- Preserve generated issue IDs in route mocks used by backlog/assignment
contract tests.
- Document PR-gardening task deduplication expectations in the company
skill.
- Add focused regression tests for idempotency retention, liveness
recovery cooldowns, and productivity-review
batching/suppression/ordering behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed on latest head.
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts
--reporter verbose` — 2 files, 23 tests passed on latest head.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils build && pnpm exec vitest
run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils --reporter dot` — 30 files
passed, 476 tests passed, 8 skipped.
- `pnpm build` — passed on latest head.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed on the rebased head before the final
productivity-review ordering commit; the latest touched server code is
covered by the server typecheck above.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run` — progressed through server, UI, CLI, shared,
skills-catalog, and DB sections, then exposed an adapter-utils
compiled-test fingerprint mismatch before rebuilding adapter-utils; the
adapter-utils project passed after rebuild, and the GitHub split PR
checks passed on the pushed head.
## Risks
- Caller-supplied idempotency replay is now bounded to 7 days; reusing
an old key after retention can create new work, which matches
retry-oriented idempotency semantics.
- Recovery and productivity-review timing changes may suppress redundant
follow-up work; focused tests cover the intended boundaries.
- Advisory locking and idempotency cleanup rely on PostgreSQL-compatible
transaction semantics already used by the production data layer.
- The migration extends the private claim table indexes without
rewriting existing issue rows.
> 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 based on GPT-5, with reasoning, repository editing,
shell/tool execution, and test execution. Exact model ID and
context-window size are 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 control plane people use to organize
and govern AI-agent companies
> - Company skills are durable resources that users browse, import,
assign, and maintain over time
> - A flat skill list plus tags does not provide a stable location or
hierarchy for personal, company, project-imported, and bundled skills
> - Folder paths need to be canonical, company-scoped, safe to move, and
preserved across re-imports without changing skill IDs
> - The `/skills` UI also needs traversal, breadcrumbs, move/create
flows, and a dedicated My Skills namespace that work on desktop and
mobile
> - This pull request adds the folder data model and APIs, reserved-root
lifecycle, project import behavior, and the folder-first skills
experience
> - The benefit is a predictable filesystem-like organization model
while tags remain available for cross-cutting classification
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9619 — the reviewed folder foundation was intentionally closed and
folded into this combined feature PR.
Refs #9026 — earlier flat-folder attempt superseded by this integrated
implementation.
Refs #3281 — related skill organization proposal; this PR uses canonical
persisted folders rather than deriving groups from skill keys, and does
not add hidden-skill behavior.
**Feature request**
- **Problem:** Skills currently lack a canonical hierarchical location,
making personal skills, project imports, bundled skills, and
company-authored skills difficult to traverse and manage at scale.
- **Proposed behavior:** Add nested company-scoped folders with stable
paths, reserved My/Projects/Bundled roots, subtree queries, safe
move/create operations, and a folder-first `/skills` library UI.
- **Import behavior:** New project scans file skills under
`projects/<project-slug>`; later imports update content without
overriding a user-selected folder.
- **Alternatives considered:** Tags alone remain useful for
cross-cutting classification, but they do not provide canonical
location, nesting, reserved namespaces, or stable import placement.
- **Roadmap alignment:** Extends the completed Skills Manager and
Scheduled Routines capabilities without duplicating an active roadmap
item.
## What Changed
- Adds `folders` persistence for routine and skill folders, nested
canonical paths, parent/slug/system-key fields, migration backfills, and
reapply-safe migrations `0174`–`0175` after current master migrations.
- Adds company-scoped folder CRUD, cycle/depth/namespace validation,
reserved My/Projects/Bundled lifecycle, item moves, subtree filtering,
and folder paths on skill results.
- Preserves project-import placement: first import files into the
project folder, while re-import keeps user-owned placement and stable
skill IDs.
- Adds the `/skills` folder tree rail, tags facet, breadcrumbs,
subfolder browser, move/new-folder dialog, canonical detail location,
inline tag editing, and folder-aware Studio creation.
- Keeps bundled skills read-only even when their source metadata is
incomplete by detecting the reserved Bundled folder and hiding
selection/move actions.
- Extends routine folder UI and OpenAPI coverage, and adds regression
tests across migrations, services, routes, tree helpers, pages, and
Studio creation.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/db/src/nested-skill-folders-migration.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/folders-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/folders-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/folders/FolderControls.test.tsx
ui/src/components/folders/SkillFolderTree.test.tsx
ui/src/components/folders/skill-folder-tree.test.ts
ui/src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/company-skill-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/skill-create.test.ts`
— 13 files, 192 tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx
ui/src/components/folders/SkillFolderTree.test.tsx` — 2 files, 20 tests
passed after preserving the existing PR's bundled-skill fixes.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all workspace packages.
- `pnpm test:run` — passed in an isolated CI-like environment with
inherited Paperclip runtime identity and static AWS credential variables
removed.
- `pnpm build` — production build passed for all workspace packages.
- Greptile iteration 2 — 5/5 confidence with zero unresolved threads on
commit `ff2d67aa71`.
- Latest-head GitHub checks — all success, neutral, or skipped; PR is
mergeable with a clean merge state.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — reports nine existing `#9627` comment false
positives already present on `master`; this PR introduces no new token
violation.
## Risks
- **Migration/backfill:** `0174` creates the foundation and `0175` adds
nested/reserved semantics. Both are ordered after current master
migration `0173`, are covered by numbering/safety checks, and are
designed to be reapply-safe.
- **Reserved namespaces:** My, Projects, and Bundled roots are
service-managed. Regression coverage prevents namespace squatting,
cross-company folder use, bundled writes, cycles, and excessive depth.
- **Behavioral change:** Project scans choose a project folder only on
initial creation; existing skills deliberately retain their current
folder during refresh.
- **UI scope:** The folder rail applies to the Installed library;
Catalog retains the discovery-oriented category sidebar.
> 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-5.5` in Codex CLI, medium reasoning mode; runtime did not
expose a context-window value. Used repository/file tools, terminal
execution, Git/GitHub operations, test execution, and code editing.
## 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 work
> - The inbox subsystem must let agents act for a responsible user
without silently granting access to every company user's tasks
> - Existing authorization had no inbox-specific action, target-user
scope, or per-user agent policy
> - Inbox archive data also needs company-safe ownership and replay-safe
schema changes before API mutations can rely on it
> - This pull request adds the database policy foundation and a
fail-closed `inbox:manage` authorization decision
> - The benefit is a least-privilege core for later inbox archive
endpoints, including explicit cross-user grants and low-trust denial
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting (`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, and `server`).
### Problem or motivation
Agents need to manage inbox state for the user responsible for their
run, but the control plane lacks an inbox-specific permission model and
user-targeted grant scope. A generic mutation path would risk cross-user
access or inconsistent policy enforcement.
### Proposed solution
Add inbox archive ownership and per-user agent policies, introduce
`inbox:manage`, and evaluate responsible-user defaults,
disabled/allowlist policies, active membership, low-trust presets, and
scoped cross-user grants in one authorization decision.
### Alternatives considered
Reusing generic issue mutation permissions was rejected because it
cannot express user-targeted inbox scope. Requiring grants for all
self-user access was rejected because it would make the responsible-user
path closed by default instead of using the requested per-user policy
model.
### Roadmap alignment
`ROADMAP.md` contains no overlapping inbox archive or inbox
authorization item; this is incremental control-plane authorization
work.
### Additional context
This PR provides the authorization and schema foundation. Route and UI
behavior can build on this decision without duplicating access-control
rules.
## What Changed
- Builds on the merged migration `0172_inbox_archive_agent_policies`
(#9654) for company/user-scoped inbox archives and per-user agent policy
rows.
- Added replay-safe migration `0173_inbox_policy_agent_cleanup` with a
GIN allowlist index and GIN-backed database cleanup that removes deleted
agent IDs from policy allowlists.
- Added Drizzle schema exports for inbox agent policies and
responsible-user ownership on inbox archives.
- Added the shared `inbox:manage` permission key and `scope.userIds`
evaluation for user-targeted grants.
- Added fail-closed inbox authorization for unresolved targets, inactive
memberships, low-trust agents, disabled policies, allowlist misses, and
ungranted cross-user access.
- Added migration replay coverage and the full inbox authorization
decision matrix.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/db/src/inbox-archive-agent-policies-migration.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts` — 50 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
## Risks
- The merged `0172` migration changed inbox archive uniqueness from
agent-owned to responsible-user-owned rows; `0173` is additive (index +
cleanup trigger) and idempotent, and replay coverage verifies both
remain safe for databases that already applied an earlier form.
- `scope.userIds` uses the existing JSON grant-scope parser, so
malformed privileged grant payloads continue to fail through the shared
parsing behavior rather than a dedicated schema.
- Cross-user grants intentionally act as board-admin overrides;
responsible-user default access remains bounded by disabled and
allowlist policies.
- The authorization action is not yet wired to public mutation routes,
limiting immediate behavioral impact while establishing the contract
those routes must use.
> 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`, high reasoning effort, CLI tool use,
code execution, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip control-plane integration.
Context window size is not exposed by the configured adapter.
## 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 inbox tracks issue visibility separately for each responsible
user
> - Existing inbox archive records only identify the user whose inbox
changed, not the actor that made the change
> - Agent-managed inbox cleanup needs durable agent and heartbeat-run
attribution for auditability
> - Users also need a minimal core policy that can remain open, restrict
access to an allowlist, or disable agent inbox management
> - This pull request adds those database contracts without changing
routes or services
> - The benefit is a company-scoped, auditable foundation for later
agent inbox-management APIs
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Subsystem affected
`packages/db` — Drizzle schema and migrations.
### Problem or motivation
Agent workflows such as PR gardening can reduce inbox noise after work
is complete, but existing inbox archive records only identify the user
whose inbox changed. They cannot retain which agent acted or which
heartbeat run performed the action, and there is no user-specific policy
controlling whether agents may manage that inbox.
### Proposed solution
Add database-only contracts for agent-managed inbox archiving: actor
type, agent ID, and heartbeat-run attribution on archive rows, plus one
company-scoped policy per user with `open`, `allowlist`, or `disabled`
mode. Existing archive rows retain `user` attribution by default. Route,
service, and UI behavior are intentionally deferred.
### Alternatives considered
- Store attribution only in activity logs: rejected because archive
state needs durable, directly queryable attribution.
- Add richer per-agent rules immediately: rejected because advanced
policy rules belong in a later or enterprise layer; the core table stays
deliberately minimal.
- Implement APIs in the same change: rejected to keep this
migration-focused PR independently reviewable and safe to deploy.
### Roadmap alignment
`ROADMAP.md` does not currently list this capability. This PR
establishes only the database foundation and does not overlap a listed
roadmap item.
### Additional context
Expected behavior is that legacy archive rows upgrade without backfill,
new archive rows can reference an agent and heartbeat run, and each
company/user pair has at most one agent policy.
## What Changed
- Added actor type, agent ID, and heartbeat run ID attribution columns
to `issue_inbox_archives` with enum checks and `SET NULL` foreign keys.
- Added the company-scoped `user_inbox_agent_policies` table with mode
validation, JSONB agent allowlists, timestamps, and unique company/user
ownership.
- Added migration `0172_inbox_archive_agent_policies.sql` using
idempotent DDL for existing installations.
- Added an embedded PostgreSQL migration test covering legacy rows,
attribution round-trips, policy JSON, and policy uniqueness.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run
src/inbox-archive-agent-policies-migration.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
## Risks
- Low migration risk: adding the non-null actor type uses a constant
`user` default so legacy rows upgrade without a data backfill.
- Agent and run deletions clear attribution foreign keys by design; the
actor type remains available for audit interpretation.
- No API behavior changes are included, so the new contracts remain
unused until follow-up service work 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 Codex using GPT-5.4 with reasoning, repository tools, shell
execution, and test execution. The runtime did not expose a
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 already treats issue creation as a company-scoped mutation,
but retries and parallel agent heartbeats can submit the same create
more than once. Client instructions cannot provide at-most-once behavior
under concurrency, so the guard belongs in the server transaction. This
change adds an explicit company-scoped idempotency contract, a
conservative fallback for recent open same-parent titles, and run
attribution for auditability. Advisory transaction locks serialize
competing requests before lookup/insert, avoiding the race that affected
the prior attempt.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#6529.
This is a clean replacement for #6936, which was closed because it mixed
unrelated changes and its check-then-insert implementation was not
concurrency-safe. Unlike that attempt, this PR is scoped to eight files,
uses a dedicated idempotency-key table, and serializes duplicate
candidates inside the create transaction.
## What Changed
- Accept optional `idempotencyKey` and `allowDuplicate` fields on issue
creation.
- Replay the existing issue with HTTP 200 and deduplication metadata for
a repeated company/key pair.
- Deduplicate recent open issues with the same company, parent, and
normalized title for 48 hours unless `allowDuplicate: true` is supplied.
- Persist idempotency mappings in a company-scoped table and serialize
competing creates with transaction advisory locks.
- Populate `originRunId` from `X-Paperclip-Run-Id` for agent/manual
creates when the body does not provide an origin run.
- Add route integration coverage for key replay, title fallback, bypass,
closed/old recreation, company scoping, and run attribution.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts` — 7
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.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-assigned-backlog-contract-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-create-deduplication-routes.test.ts` — 10
tests passed after the service-contract compatibility fix.
## Risks
- The title fallback intentionally treats normalized same-parent titles
as duplicates for 48 hours; callers creating intentionally repeated
titles must send `allowDuplicate: true`.
- Advisory locks use hashed duplicate keys, so an extremely unlikely
hash collision can serialize unrelated creates but cannot merge their
lookup results.
- Deleting an issue cascades its idempotency mapping, allowing the same
key to create a replacement later.
## Model Used
- OpenAI `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning effort, Codex CLI with
repository, shell, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API tool 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 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 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 manage
AI-agent companies
> - Budgets and spend telemetry are control-plane safety features, not
just reporting
> - Local Codex and Claude adapters can execute through either ACP or
their native CLI engines
> - The ACP lane records usage and reported cost, but CLI JSON output
often reports tokens without a price
> - The CLI lane was either losing per-run usage semantics or coercing
missing cost to zero, making real usage indistinguishable from a
genuinely free run
> - This pull request preserves CLI usage as per-run totals and records
token-bearing runs without a reported price as explicitly unpriced
ledger events
> - The benefit is accurate usage accounting and a visible pricing gap
instead of silently misleading zero-cost telemetry
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9471
Refs #9230
**Bug description**
A `codex_local` run using the CLI engine can emit a final
`turn.completed` event with millions of input tokens and tens of
thousands of output tokens while the agent's spend ledger remains
indistinguishable from a true zero-usage, zero-cost run. Claude CLI
output has the same missing-price edge case.
**Expected behavior**
Token-bearing CLI runs should persist their usage. If the adapter
reports a price, the ledger should record it as reported; if the CLI
reports usage but no price, the ledger should explicitly mark the event
as unpriced rather than silently treating missing price data as a
reported `$0` cost.
**Reproduction shape**
1. Configure `codex_local` with `engine: cli`.
2. Run a task that produces a `turn.completed` usage payload.
3. Observe token usage in the run stream.
4. Before this change, missing price data is represented as ordinary
zero-cost spend and the CLI usage basis is not consistently propagated.
## What Changed
- Mark Codex and Claude native CLI usage totals as `per_run` and
propagate that basis through success and failure results.
- Stop coercing missing Claude CLI cost to `0`.
- Add `cost_status` to cost events with `reported` and `unpriced`
values, including an idempotent migration and shared validation/types.
- Persist token-bearing runs without a reported price as `unpriced`
ledger events while retaining zero cents until an authoritative price
exists.
- Add parser, execute-path, heartbeat-accounting, and cost-service
regression coverage for both local CLI adapters.
- Document the cost-status invariant and CLI accounting behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/parse.test.ts
packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/parse.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-cost-accounting.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts` — 6 files / 102 tests
passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — includes migration
numbering and safety checks.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
## Risks
- Existing cost rows default to `reported`, preserving current
interpretation; only new token-bearing events with absent cost are
marked `unpriced`.
- This change does not invent model pricing. Budget hard stops still
cannot charge an unknown amount, but operators and evals can now
distinguish missing pricing from a genuinely reported zero cost.
- Consumers that enumerate cost-event fields should tolerate the
additive `costStatus` field.
> 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 `gpt-5.3-codex`, with repository tool use
and code execution; default reasoning mode.
## 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-agent
companies and their recurring work
> - Scheduled routines provide native cron-driven execution for
recurring agent tasks
> - Watcher-style routines currently dispatch a model run even when the
control plane has been quiet since their last useful run
> - Existing pause, catch-up, and concurrency policies do not
distinguish external work from a routine's own bookkeeping
> - This pull request adds a generic activity gate that checks
company-scoped activity provenance before scheduled dispatch
> - The benefit is backward-compatible zero-token quiet skips while real
human, agent, or delegated-child activity still wakes the routine
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #8534
## What Changed
- Added `activity_gate_policy` and `activity_gate_scope` routine columns
with backward-compatible `always` / `company` defaults.
- Added a company-bounded `evaluateActivityGate()` predicate that uses
the last dispatched run as its open window, excludes the routine's own
execution runs and scheduler bookkeeping, ignores pure-read actions, and
supports company/project scope.
- Integrated the predicate into scheduled ticks after pause/worktree
eligibility checks; quiet ticks create visible skipped run-history rows
with reason `no_external_activity` and gate-window diagnostics without
advancing the activity window.
- Kept webhook, manual, and API dispatch paths ungated; catch-up
schedules evaluate the gate once per scheduler tick.
- Added migration-default, provenance predicate, project-scope,
quiet-window, scheduler, and webhook-bypass coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` —
51 tests passed
- Embedded Postgres `EXPLAIN` for the company-scope gate scan:
```text
Limit (cost=24.56..24.58 rows=1 width=24)
-> Incremental Sort (cost=24.56..24.60 rows=2 width=24)
Sort Key: activity.created_at, activity.id
Presorted Key: activity.created_at
-> Nested Loop Anti Join (cost=0.44..24.55 rows=1 width=24)
Join Filter: (own_run.id = activity.run_id)
-> Index Scan using activity_log_company_created_idx on activity_log activity (cost=0.15..8.19 rows=1 width=40)
Index Cond: ((company_id = '00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001'::uuid) AND (created_at > (now() - '01:00:00'::interval)) AND (created_at <= now()))
```
## Risks
- The migration adds two non-null text columns, but constant defaults
preserve all existing routine behavior and avoid a backfill step.
- Project scope resolves activity through issue/run/routine provenance;
tests cover in-project and cross-project issue activity, while every
top-level and correlated query remains company-bounded.
- This is the scheduler/schema foundation. Public API validation and
documentation for configuring the new fields are intentionally handled
in the next scoped follow-up.
> 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` with medium reasoning, repository/tool
access, terminal code execution, and test execution. The runtime did not
expose a 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 extends the
existing Scheduled Routines roadmap item
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked the
related efficiency request 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 (no
user-facing configuration is exposed in this scoped foundation PR)
- [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 board currently uses issues for execution, but longer-lived
content work needs a separate object that can survive beyond a single
task thread.
> - The Cases subsystem adds an experimental, company-scoped record for
content artifacts and their supporting metadata.
> - The backend needs durable storage, API routes, revision history,
issue linkage, and company-boundary enforcement before the UI can depend
on Cases.
> - The UI needs an opt-in navigation surface, list/detail views,
reference chips, and issue-page context so operators can inspect Cases
without making them the default workflow.
> - The agent-facing skills need a contract for creating and updating
Cases so automated content workflows can dogfood the feature.
> - This pull request ships that experimental end-to-end path behind the
`enableCases` flag.
> - The benefit is a first-class place to collect content work,
references, attachments, revisions, and related execution threads
without polluting the core issue model.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this experimental feature.
Feature request fields:
### Problem
Content-oriented work such as release notes, announcements, docs, and
campaigns can span many execution issues, which makes the final artifact
hard to find and reason about after the execution thread moves on.
### Proposed solution
Add an experimental Cases object that is company-scoped, linked to
issues, queryable through the API, inspectable in the board UI, and
writable by agent workflows through documented conventions.
### Alternatives considered
Continue encoding content artifacts directly in issues or documents
only. That keeps the data model smaller, but it does not give operators
a stable artifact-centric view or a clean way to link related execution
history.
### Roadmap alignment
Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned
core roadmap item.
## What Changed
- Added the `cases` data model, migration, schema exports, and
experimental `enableCases` instance setting.
- Added company-scoped Cases API routes for list/detail/update, issue
links, revisions, children, activity events, annotations, attachments,
and idempotent agent-oriented upserts.
- Scoped case and issue lookup helpers before access checks so
inaccessible cross-company identifiers resolve as not found rather than
leaking existence.
- Fixed case PATCH timestamp handling so non-status updates cannot
overwrite `completedAt` from a stale pre-transaction row snapshot.
- Moved Cases list type/status/project filters into the server request
before the server-side limit is applied, including multi-select filters
and no-project filtering.
- Added backend route coverage for creation, updates, idempotency, issue
linking, attribution, company-boundary enforcement, OpenAPI
registration, list filtering, timestamp patch behavior, and inaccessible
lookup regressions.
- Added the experimental Cases UI surface: sidebar entry, gated routes,
list filters/grouping, detail overview, activity, revisions, children,
attachments, and issue-page case rail.
- Added case reference rendering and company-prefixed case href
generation so case links resolve directly inside the active company
route.
- Added Paperclip skill documentation for agent workflows that create or
update Cases.
- Wired release-content skills to emit Cases for dogfooding.
- Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the Cases migrations to
`0143`/`0144` after the latest upstream migration sequence.
## Verification
- Current PR head: `ecc13be0d`.
- Rebased on current `master` (`606aa4f266`) and pushed to the existing
PR branch.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed before the first
update push; subsequent committed diffs were also checked with `git diff
--check` before commit.
- Guardrails checked: no `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes, no
`.github/workflows` changes, and changed-file count is below the
Greptile 100-file limit.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — passed, 3 files / 26 tests
before review-fix commits.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts` — passed after each server-side
Greptile fix, latest 1 file / 15 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed after the
timestamp and lookup fixes.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/Cases.test.tsx src/pages/CaseDetail.test.tsx
src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx src/App.cases-routing.test.tsx` —
passed, 4 files / 30 tests before review-fix commits.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/Cases.test.tsx` — passed after the list-filter fix, 1 file /
12 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed after the
list-filter fix.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed after UI changes.
- Remote PR checks on head `ecc13be0d` are green: Paperclip CI, build,
typecheck, test matrix, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, commit review,
Superagent Security Scan, Socket, Snyk, and Greptile passed; Storybook
visual regression is skipped and security-review is neutral.
- Greptile Review: 5/5 confidence, zero unresolved Greptile threads.
## Risks
- Medium feature risk because this introduces a new experimental domain
object across database, server, shared contracts, skills, and UI.
- The feature is gated behind `enableCases`, which limits default
operator exposure while the model is exercised.
- Case links now prefer company-prefixed hrefs; the unprefixed redirect
remains for externally entered URLs.
- Cases list filtering now sends multi-select filters to the server
before limiting; the UI still applies the same local filters as a second
pass for ancestor/context rows.
- Migrations were renumbered on top of current master; the SQL uses
guarded `IF NOT EXISTS` / `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` patterns where
relevant for safer replay.
> 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 in the Paperclip local coding environment was used
for this PR curation, rebase verification, review-fix implementation,
push, and PR description update. The runtime exposes tool use and shell
execution; context-window size is not exposed by this Paperclip adapter.
Several implementation commits also include AI co-author trailers
recorded in git 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 searched the GitHub PR list for similar PRs and confirmed this
is not a duplicate
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Dotta
Nicky Leach
Tonio
Devin Foley
scotttong
LeonSGP
