## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - A growing part of that work runs in sandboxed environments rather
than on the operator's local machine.
> - Today sandbox providers can start fresh workspaces and run probes,
but they do not have a shared contract for capturing and reusing
prepared sandbox state.
> - Operators need a way to set up tools, credentials, and project
dependencies once, then reuse that prepared image for later agent runs.
> - This pull request adds reusable sandbox custom images across the
provider contract, server runtime, and board UI.
> - It also keeps probes and sandbox copy flows aligned with
pre-authenticated/custom-image environments.
> - The benefit is faster, more reliable sandbox runs without repeatedly
rebuilding the same environment setup.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue was found for this change. Inline feature request
follows.
### Problem or motivation
Sandboxed agents need reusable prepared runtime state so repeated runs
do not require manual setup every time. Operators often need system
packages, CLIs, SDKs, dependency caches, credentials, and project
tooling available before an agent can work productively.
### Proposed solution
Add a provider-level custom-image capability, server-side setup/capture
lifecycle, Daytona/fake provider support, and board UI controls for
creating, testing, selecting, and deleting custom images.
### Alternatives considered
Leaving this as provider-specific setup outside Paperclip would keep the
control plane blind to image state and would not give agents consistent
environment metadata. Re-running setup commands for every lease is
simpler, but slower and less reliable for interactive or credentialed
setup.
### Roadmap alignment
Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this aligns with the Cloud / Sandbox agents
roadmap area and does not duplicate any related public issue or PR found
by search.
Additional context:
- Subsystem affected: cross-cutting (`packages/db`, `packages/shared`,
`packages/plugins`, `server`, `ui`).
- Duplicate search: searched GitHub for `sandbox custom image` and
`sandbox template environment`; no related public issues or PRs were
found.
## What Changed
- Added custom-image shared types, validators, constants, API paths, and
database schema/migration.
- Added server services/routes for custom-image templates and setup
sessions, including runtime cleanup and provider metadata handling.
- Extended plugin/sandbox provider capabilities for interactive setup,
template capture, and template deletion.
- Implemented custom-image support in the fake sandbox provider and
Daytona provider.
- Updated environment runtime/config handling so active custom images
flow into leases, probes, and agent execution.
- Added board UI controls and API client support for custom-image setup,
capture, selection, status, and error states.
- Hardened sandbox copy/probe behavior for insecure clipboard contexts
and pre-authenticated sandbox images.
- Added targeted coverage across shared validators, DB schema, server
routes/services, provider plugins, adapter probes, and UI flows.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`
- `pnpm vitest run
packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/test.probe.test.ts
packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/test.ts
packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/test.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck`
- `pnpm vitest run
packages/db/src/environment-custom-images-schema.test.ts
packages/shared/src/environment-custom-images.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/src/plugin.test.ts
ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/CompanySettings.test.tsx`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `rm -rf packages/db/dist && pnpm test:run`
- Public-safety scan of the final diff found no internal Paperclip issue
links, private instance URLs, or real secret patterns.
## Risks
- Adds a database migration and new environment runtime tables, so
migration ordering and rollback need care.
- Provider implementations may differ in how reliably they can
capture/delete images; unsupported providers surface capability-gated UI
states.
- Custom-image state can contain operator-prepared tooling and
credentials inside the provider image, so providers must enforce their
own access controls and cleanup semantics.
- Broad surface area across shared contracts, server runtime, plugins,
adapters, and UI means CI and Greptile review should be watched closely.
> 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 (`gpt-5`) via Codex CLI with tool use and code execution.
Assisted with branch cleanup, conflict resolution, local verification,
and PR preparation. Earlier branch implementation work was assisted by
Paperclip-managed Claude/Codex agents.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Pipeline automations let operators standardize repeated issue and
workflow actions.
> - Pipeline-created issues currently need a way to derive useful titles
from routine variables.
> - Without a configurable title template, automated pipeline output is
harder to scan and distinguish.
> - This pull request adds a title-template field through shared
contracts, server persistence, API routes, and the pipeline settings UI.
> - The benefit is clearer issue titles for pipeline-created work while
preserving the existing pipeline behavior when no template is
configured.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #8790
This PR adds configurable generated-issue title templates for pipeline
automations.
## What Changed
- Added `issueTitleTemplate` to the shared pipeline automation contract
and field constants.
- Persisted and returned the title template through pipeline service and
route code.
- Applied title-template rendering when pipeline automations create
issue work.
- Added pipeline settings UI controls for editing the title template and
reusing routine variables.
- Moved title-token cursor restoration out of the React state updater
and into a layout effect.
- Added server and UI coverage for storing, returning, and rendering
pipeline title templates.
## Verification
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && NODE_ENV=test
pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/pipelines-routes.test.ts
ui/src/pages/PipelineSettings.test.ts`
- Result before review follow-up: 3 files passed, 58 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/PipelineSettings.test.ts`
- Result after review follow-up: 1 file passed, 7 tests passed.
- Branch was merged with current `paperclipai:master` at `f019f54bb3`
before opening this PR.
- Searched existing PRs for the same head branch and for pipeline
title-template duplicates; no matching existing PR was found.
- Note: GitHub could not open a PR directly from `cryppadotta/paperclip`
because that repository is not a fork of `paperclipai/paperclip`. The
same updated branch SHA was pushed to `paperclipai/paperclip` so this PR
can compare normally against `master`.
## Risks
Low to moderate risk. The change touches pipeline automation persistence
and generated issue creation, so regressions would most likely appear as
missing or incorrectly rendered generated issue titles. Existing
behavior should remain unchanged when `issueTitleTemplate` is unset.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool-enabled execution in a
Paperclip heartbeat, with repository inspection, Git, GitHub CLI, and
local test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent adapters are the boundary between the control plane and the
runtimes that actually do work.
> - Hermes support needs to be available as first-class local and
gateway adapters while still preserving the adapter-manager override
path for external packages.
> - The adapter work touches runtime execution, UI adapter metadata,
onboarding prompts, scoped credentials, release packaging, and smoke
coverage, so the handoff needs concrete verification rather than only
unit tests.
> - This pull request adds built-in Hermes local and Hermes gateway
support, keeps external adapter overrides compatible, and
documents/tests the gateway flow end to end.
> - The benefit is that operators can hire Hermes-backed agents without
a manual plugin install, while self-hosted installs can still
override/shadow the built-ins through Adapter manager packages.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this exact Hermes built-in adapter,
gateway onboarding, and release-source work.
Problem description:
- Hermes local and gateway adapters need a public, reviewable source
path in the monorepo so package artifacts and built-in adapter behavior
match the application source.
- Operators need built-in `hermes_local` and `hermes_gateway` adapter
choices without losing the ability to install external Hermes packages
as overrides.
- Gateway onboarding needs secure defaults for API server URLs, API
keys, and generated agent setup text.
- Hermes-originated task bridge credentials need narrower API-key scope
configuration.
- Related public PRs found during duplicate search include #3027, #2363,
#7544, #7950, #8095, and #8543.
## What Changed
- Added the unified Hermes adapter package with local and gateway
server/UI/CLI exports, config schemas, transcript parsing, model
detection, and package metadata.
- Registered `hermes_local` and `hermes_gateway` as built-in adapters
across shared constants, server registries, CLI packaging, and UI
adapter registries.
- Kept the external adapter override path compatible so installed Hermes
packages can shadow built-ins and restore the built-in parser when
disabled.
- Added Hermes gateway onboarding docs, board-operator docs, Docker
smoke assets, and shell smoke harnesses for join/e2e validation.
- Added scoped task-bridge API-key support, authorization checks,
issue-origin handling, and tests for Hermes-created Paperclip tasks.
- Hardened gateway transport and redaction behavior for API keys,
headers, session data, and smoke diagnostics.
- Updated release packaging/bootstrap checks for the Hermes packages
while leaving `pnpm-lock.yaml` out of the PR per repository policy.
## Verification
Targeted local verification recorded before PR handoff:
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter exec vitest run
src/gateway/server/execute.test.ts` — 14/14 passed.
- `pnpm test:hermes-gateway-smoke` — 6/6 passed.
- Hermes package typecheck/build checks passed.
- Focused server/UI adapter tests passed — 31/31.
- Release helper Node tests passed — 18/18.
- `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` passed.
Fresh Docker E2E smoke evidence:
- Ran `pnpm smoke:hermes-gateway-e2e` on 2026-06-26 with a fresh state
directory and fresh Docker container against a live Paperclip dev
server.
- Hermes direct execution reached `completed`.
- Hermes stop/cancel path reached `cancelled`.
- Hermes gateway created a Paperclip task, Paperclip ran the Hermes
agent, and the task reached `done` with the expected marker response.
- Temporary board auth keys, token files, smoke state, and Docker
containers were cleaned up after the run.
PR checks on head `b5eae40ce`:
- GitHub Actions passed: `policy`, `review`, `Typecheck + Release
Registry`, all general test shards, all serialized server shards,
`Build`, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, and aggregate `verify`.
- External checks passed: Snyk and Socket Project Report.
- External Socket Pull Request Alerts remained pending after the
first-party CI matrix completed.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this spans adapter registration, package publishing,
gateway execution, onboarding docs, API-key scoping, and UI adapter
metadata.
- Migration risk is low: the scope-config migration adds a nullable
column and does not rewrite existing keys.
- Gateway execution depends on operator-provided Hermes API
configuration; the smoke covers the Docker gateway path but real
deployments may differ by network/auth setup.
- Direct Greptile review on the latest expanded diff is file-count
limited, although the commitperclip review gate passed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use enabled in a local repository
workspace. Context window size is not exposed 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 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] Commitperclip review gate is green; direct Greptile review is
file-count limited on the latest expanded diff
- [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 pipeline subsystem models repeatable work as items moving
through stages, with agent automation, review gates, blockers, drift
notices, and linked work.
> - Operators need this to be usable as one coherent workflow surface,
not just as backend primitives or disconnected route experiments.
> - The branch now carries the pipeline data model, service/routes,
CLI/tutorial path, aggregation feeds, operator UI, stage automation
controls, liveness/retry handling, and follow-up polish that make the
primitive reviewable end to end.
> - This pull request is the single review target for that pipeline
workflow primitive stack.
> - The benefit is that reviewers can evaluate the full operator
experience and server contract together against `master`.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work. The underlying feature
request is described inline.
### Problem or motivation
Paperclip needs a first-class way to model multi-stage agent/company
workflows where upstream items can spawn downstream work, request
review, carry fields across pipelines, surface drift, retry automation,
and show operators where work is blocked or active. Without a unified
pipeline primitive, these workflows spread across ad hoc issues,
routines, and comments, making the state hard to inspect or operate.
### Proposed solution
Add the pipeline workflow primitive stack: database schema and
migrations, shared validators/types, server services and REST routes,
aggregation and liveness helpers, CLI/tutorial smoke support, and the
React operator UI for pipeline lists, boards, item detail,
review/learnings views, settings, stage automation, secrets, carry-over
fields, and retry/recovery flows.
### Alternatives considered
- Keep workflows as loosely linked issues and routines: rejected because
operators need a single board/detail/settings surface for repeated
workflow patterns.
- Ship backend primitives first and defer UI: rejected for this branch
because the operator experience is the main way to validate the
primitive.
- Add a narrower one-off content workflow: rejected because the same
primitives are useful across future company processes.
## What Changed
- Added and evolved pipeline schema, migrations, shared contracts,
server services, REST routes, route tests, and CLI/tutorial smoke
support.
- Added pipeline aggregation, health/liveness, drift acknowledgment,
blocker/carry-over, automation retry, stage automation environment, and
permission recovery behavior.
- Added the operator UI for pipeline index/board/item
detail/settings/review/learnings flows, including stage secrets,
automation controls, markdown/item descriptions, linked issue assets,
liveness banners, and source automation metadata.
- Refactored issue document frame rendering through the shared
`DocumentFrameHeader` component to keep document controls consistent
with the pipeline document surfaces.
- Kept this PR as the single base-branch review target for the current
pipeline branch.
## Verification
Current branch refresh:
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-service.test.ts` — 31
passed
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-routes.test.ts` — 19
passed
- `pnpm --filter ./server typecheck` — passed
- `pnpm --filter ./ui typecheck` — passed
- Verified Pipelines remains gated by `enablePipelines === true`:
sidebar item is hidden unless the flag is enabled, direct pipeline
routes redirect to `/dashboard` when disabled, and the Experimental
settings UI still has no Pipelines toggle.
- GitHub status checks on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` —
all complete with no failing conclusions, including Actions, Socket,
Superagent/Security, and Greptile Review
- Greptile summary on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` —
Confidence Score 5/5
- GitHub review-thread sweep — 0 unresolved Greptile threads
Previously recorded during branch development:
- Server pipeline service/route and aggregation tests
- Shared validator tests
- UI pipeline page/settings/item-detail/learnings/liveness tests
- Pipeline tutorial smoke path
## Risks
- High review surface: this is a large feature branch spanning database,
shared contracts, server behavior, CLI/docs, and UI.
- Migration ordering and schema compatibility need reviewer attention
because this branch has been kept current across multiple `master`
syncs.
- GitHub still reports merge state `BLOCKED` because the PR is awaiting
normal human review/branch-protection completion; all current status
checks are green.
- Branch-name checklist exception: this PR uses the pre-existing
requested branch name, which predates the current public-branch naming
rule. The PR title/body avoid internal issue references.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use,
shell execution, git/GitHub CLI operations, and local verification
commands. Earlier commits in this branch were assisted by Paperclip
agents and other AI coding agents as recorded in commit authorship.
## 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 app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Scheduled routines can prompt agents with variables that are filled
in at dispatch time.
> - Existing routine variable handling supported plain text-like values,
but date inputs need a structured contract so routines can pass
consistent date values.
> - Operators also need date variables to be easy to configure and
override from the routine UI.
> - This pull request adds a date variable type across shared
validation, server dispatch, and UI editing/run dialogs.
> - The benefit is that routine authors can define date inputs once and
agents receive validated ISO-style date values when routines run.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #219
Feature request:
- Problem/motivation: Scheduled routines need first-class, typed date
variables so operators can configure dates without relying on free-form
text conventions.
- Proposed solution: Add an `x-date` routine variable type with shared
parsing/validation, server dispatch support, and UI date-picker controls
in routine variable editors and run dialogs.
- Alternatives considered: Continue treating dates as plain text, but
that leaves validation and formatting to individual operators and
agents.
- Roadmap alignment: This is a focused improvement to the completed
Scheduled Routines milestone and does not duplicate an active roadmap
item.
Related PR search:
- Searched existing PRs/issues for `routine date picker`, `date
variables`, and `scheduled routine date variable`; no direct duplicate
PR was found.
## What Changed
- Added the shared `x-date` routine variable contract, parsing,
defaults, and validation coverage.
- Extended routine dispatch to validate and pass date variable values.
- Added date input controls to the routine variable editor and routine
run variables dialog.
- Added focused tests for shared validation, server dispatch, and the UI
date controls.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public/master...HEAD`
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/routine-variables.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/RoutineRunVariablesDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/components/RoutineVariablesEditor.test.tsx`
- 5 test files passed
- 68 tests passed
## Risks
Low to medium risk. This adds a new routine variable type across
shared/server/UI paths, so the main risk is compatibility with existing
routine variable payloads. The change keeps existing variable types
intact and adds targeted validation tests for the new date behavior.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with terminal, git, GitHub
CLI, and local test execution capabilities.
## 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 execution workspace subsystem powers project and workspace views
by listing runtime state, branch metadata, issue links, and status
summaries.
> - The existing workspace views relied on broad list data that can grow
expensive as a company accumulates many workspaces and linked issues.
> - That makes the Workspaces page and project workspace cards slower
than necessary because the UI does not always need the full workspace
detail payload up front.
> - This pull request adds a bounded overview contract for workspace
listings and moves the relevant UI surfaces to that cheaper path.
> - The benefit is faster workspace loading while preserving detail
fetches for pages that actually need full workspace data.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Inline bug report follows
the repository bug template.
### What happened?
Workspace index-style screens can load too much execution workspace
detail before the user asks for it. Several UI surfaces used fuller
workspace data paths for summary displays, which can make workspace
loading slower as workspace history grows.
### Expected behavior
Overview screens should request a bounded summary payload, while detail
screens should keep using the full workspace detail endpoint.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Run Paperclip from source with enough execution workspace history to
make workspace lists non-trivial.
2. Open the Workspaces page or a project workspace summary card.
3. Observe that summary UI needs only bounded workspace metadata but can
depend on broader workspace payloads.
### Paperclip version or commit
`master` at the time this branch was prepared.
### Deployment mode
Local dev (`pnpm dev`)
## What Changed
- Added shared types, validators, and path constants for bounded
execution workspace overviews.
- Added server service and route support for overview queries with
bounded linked issue/runtime metadata.
- Updated workspace overview UI API calls, query keys, breadcrumbs,
quicklooks, close dialogs, project summaries, and detail links to
consume the cheaper overview shape where appropriate.
- Added regression coverage for the new server route/service behavior
and the UI overview consumers.
- Registered the new workspace overview route in the generated OpenAPI
spec.
- Kept overview totals aligned with the project join and preserved
project slug links in workspace headers.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts
ui/src/api/execution-workspaces.test.ts
ui/src/components/ProjectWorkspaceSummaryCard.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Workspaces.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui
typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm test:run:serialized -- --shard-index 1 --shard-count 4`
## Risks
Low to medium risk. The change introduces a new overview contract across
shared/server/ui layers, so the main risk is a mismatch between summary
and detail payload expectations. The added route/service/UI tests cover
the intended split, and full detail pages continue using the detail
path.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with repository tool use and
local command execution. Exact served model identifier and context
window were not exposed in this session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have 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 and board users operate inside a company-scoped control plane
where permissions decide which mutating actions they can perform
> - Company skills are part of the reusable agent-company setup surface,
but skill mutation had been coupled to broader agent-creation authority
> - That coupling meant importing or managing skills required a
permission that also implies hiring power, which is broader than the
operation needs
> - Paperclip already has a grant-based permission vocabulary, so skill
mutation should be authorized through a dedicated `skills:create`
capability while preserving existing default behavior for trusted agents
> - This pull request adds the skill creation permission contract,
enforces it on company skill mutations, exposes it in agent permission
management, and documents the changed CLI/API expectations
> - The benefit is a narrower, auditable permission path for skill
import/create/update/delete flows without forcing agents to receive
broader agent-creation authority
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue is linked.
Problem: company skill mutation APIs were effectively tied to broader
agent creation authority. This PR splits skill mutation authorization
onto the public `skills:create` permission while keeping existing
default skill creation behavior for agents unless explicitly disabled.
Related public PR found during duplicate search: #5330. That PR uses an
older `canManageSkills` shape; this PR implements the `skills:create`
grant path instead.
## What Changed
- Added `skills:create` to shared permission constants and agent
permission types/validators as `canCreateSkills`.
- Backfilled default human/member role grants for `skills:create`.
- Updated company skill mutation routes to require board/user or agent
access to `skills:create`, while preserving legacy/default agent
behavior through `canCreateSkills` unless explicitly disabled.
- Updated agent permission update handling, UI permission controls,
duplicate-agent payloads, plugin SDK fixtures, and agent detail API
surfaces for `canCreateSkills`.
- Added regression coverage for skill route authorization, permission
schema/default behavior, invite grants, omitted permission updates, and
duplicate-agent payloads.
- Updated CLI and Paperclip skill documentation for the new skill
creation permission.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/invite-join-grants.test.ts
ui/src/lib/duplicate-agent-payload.test.ts` — 5 files, 90 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui
typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run ...changed files...` was attempted first, but the
stable wrapper rejects explicit file arguments; direct Vitest was used
for the same targeted files.
## Risks
- Moderate authorization risk: this changes the gate for company skill
mutations, so the tests cover board grant checks, agent explicit grant
checks, legacy default allowance, and explicit denial.
- Migration/backfill risk is low: the migration only grants
`skills:create` to existing human roles that already need broad
management capability.
- UI/API compatibility risk is low: `canCreateSkills` remains default-on
for full agent permissions, and the update validator preserves omitted
values so unrelated permission edits do not re-enable disabled skill
creation.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with terminal/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] 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.
> - Sandboxed agent runs can spend meaningful time preparing a remote
workspace before the agent transcript shows useful output.
> - Operators need short, current progress text for those setup phases,
but that text should not become durable run history.
> - The existing live-run websocket path already carries run updates to
the UI, so the backend can reuse that channel instead of adding polling.
> - This pull request adds an ephemeral runtime-progress contract, a
process-local status store, and heartbeat integration for
sandbox-managed runs.
> - The benefit is a clearer active-run experience without database
migrations or persistent progress rows.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #248
No exact public GitHub issue was found for this status-message plumbing.
The underlying problem is that active sandboxed runs currently have
setup phases, such as workspace sync and restore, where the operator
cannot see concise current progress through the live run state. This PR
addresses that gap for the backend/runtime layer while keeping progress
messages ephemeral.
GitHub search performed for related or duplicate work: `sandbox runtime
status`, `sandbox restore index`, and `runtime progress`. No direct
duplicate PR was found.
## What Changed
- Added shared runtime-progress types and the `heartbeat.run.progress`
live event type.
- Added a process-local heartbeat run runtime-status store with TTL,
bounded/redacted messages, and terminal cleanup.
- Threaded runtime progress callbacks through heartbeat execution and
active/live run serialization.
- Emitted sandbox-managed runtime phase updates for sync, adapter
startup, restore/export, and finalization paths.
- Added backend and adapter-utils tests for ephemeral status behavior,
terminal cleanup, live serialization, and sandbox progress callbacks.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- Local PII scan before push: high-confidence secret patterns, internal
issue links, local user paths, and private URL patterns checked across
all three split diffs; no real secrets or internal links found. The only
secret-like text is an intentional fake test fixture (`sk-test-secret`).
- `git diff --check origin/master..feat/sandbox-runtime-status`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/services/heartbeat-run-runtime-status.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-state.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-live-run-routes.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-managed-runtime.test.ts` — 4 files,
23 tests passed.
- `pnpm run typecheck` passed on both top stacks that include this
branch: `feat/sandbox-status-ui` and `fix/sandbox-restore-index-sync`.
- `pnpm run build` passed on both top stacks that include this branch;
Vite reported existing CSS `::highlight` and chunk-size warnings.
- `pnpm run test:run` was attempted on `fix/sandbox-restore-index-sync`;
it failed in two unrelated broad-suite tests. One depends on this host's
Git default branch behavior, and one depends on local Claude
model-discovery environment. The changed focused suites above pass.
## Risks
- Runtime progress is process-local by design, so status disappears
after TTL, terminal cleanup, or server restart.
- Clients that do not consume `heartbeat.run.progress` simply keep
existing behavior.
- Message redaction is intentionally generic; overly specific phase
details should stay out of runtime-progress payloads.
> 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 via Codex coding agent, with shell/tool execution in a
local worktree. Exact context-window metadata 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
- [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 CTO <cto@paperclip.local>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip CTO <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate
AI agents, issues, approvals, comments, and work products.
> - The involved subsystem is issue context: markdown links, issue
properties, related work, lists, filters, inbox/sidebar status, and
plugin-provided external context.
> - The gap is that URLs to external systems currently remain mostly
plain links, so humans and agents must manually open them to understand
status, identity, and liveness.
> - This matters because external work objects such as GitHub issues and
pull requests are part of the operational state of a Paperclip company.
> - The implementation keeps core provider-neutral: shared contracts,
storage, sync, routes, and UI surfaces live in core while providers can
contribute detection and status resolution.
> - This pull request adds the external object reference foundation,
GitHub provider support, issue-surface rendering, filters,
sidebar/list/inbox signals, and test/story coverage.
> - The benefit is that linked external work becomes inspectable
Paperclip context without hardcoding every provider directly into the
UI.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work.
Feature request:
- Problem: URLs in Paperclip issues, comments, documents, and related
surfaces do not expose provider status or object identity inline.
- Proposed behavior: detect supported external object URLs, persist
normalized references, refresh provider status, and render concise
status-aware links across issue surfaces.
- Users affected: board users, agents, and maintainers who triage issues
containing external work links.
- Acceptance: external object references are company-scoped,
provider-extensible, visible in key issue surfaces, filterable where
relevant, and covered by focused shared/server/UI tests.
Related PR search:
- No open duplicate PRs found for `external object references`.
- Closed related prior attempt: #4556.
## What Changed
- Added shared external-object contracts, validators, status/liveness
helpers, and plugin protocol declarations.
- Added database schema and additive migrations for external objects,
source mentions, and display metadata.
- Added server services/routes for detecting, syncing, summarizing,
refreshing, and resolving external objects across issues, documents,
comments, projects, and plugins.
- Added a GitHub external-object provider plus plugin SDK authoring
docs.
- Wired UI presentation across markdown links, comments, issue chat,
documents, properties, related work, issue rows, filters, inbox/sidebar
badges, and Storybook stories.
- Rebasing cleanup: moved the branch onto current `master`, repaired
stale worktree provision config, hardened environment-sensitive
tests/mocks, and removed committed screenshot artifacts from the PR
branch to keep the reviewable file set below tool limits.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/external-objects.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/external-object-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/ExternalObjectPill.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts` passed after rebasing: 5 files, 56
tests.
- Historical branch verification before this PR creation included `pnpm
test:run`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`; this PR body does not
claim those were rerun after the final rebase.
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new cross-surface sync path on
issue/document/comment writes. The implementation uses safe sync
wrappers so external-object failures warn instead of blocking core
mutations.
- Medium: the migrations introduce new tables and indexes. They are
additive and company-scoped.
- Medium: provider-specific URL parsing can miss or misclassify edge
cases. Shared canonicalization tests and provider tests cover current
GitHub shapes.
- Low: UI badge/filter behavior could add visual noise for object-heavy
issues; component tests and Storybook stories cover the intended
surfaces.
> Roadmap checked: `ROADMAP.md` references the plugin system as the
current extension path and does not list a duplicate core feature.
Related long-range docs discuss external references, work products,
preview URLs, and plugin extension points; this PR implements the scoped
external-object reference foundation.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding-agent runtime, with shell and GitHub CLI tool
use. Reasoning mode: medium. Exact deployed runtime model ID and context
window were not exposed in the 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 branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The task lifecycle and recovery subsystems decide when agent work is
still productive, stalled, or ready for review.
> - Existing recovery paths can observe stopped or incomplete work, but
there was no first-class per-task watchdog model with scoped review
permissions.
> - Watchdog follow-ups also need strict boundaries so
recovery/status-only runs cannot mutate approvals or perform deliverable
work.
> - This pull request adds the task watchdog data model, API/service
layer, scheduler/review flow, adapter wake context, UI configuration
surfaces, and docs.
> - The branch has been rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip`
`master`; the watchdog migration is now ordered after master's latest
migrations as `0104_issue_watchdogs`.
> - The benefit is a more explicit task-review loop that preserves
Paperclip's single-assignee and governance invariants while making
stalled work easier to route.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No linked GitHub issue. Paperclip task:
[PAP-11275](/PAP/issues/PAP-11275).
## Problem or motivation
Task recovery needs a first-class watchdog path that can inspect stopped
work and create scoped follow-ups without bypassing normal task
ownership. Board/UI users need a way to configure watchdogs on tasks and
see watchdog-related live work. Recovery/status-only runs must remain
limited to status reporting and must not create approvals, link
approvals, or submit approval comments.
## Proposed solution
Add a task-watchdog data model, scheduler/classifier, scoped mutation
guard, adapter wake context, API/UI configuration surfaces, and
documentation so watchdog agents can review stopped task subtrees under
explicit boundaries.
## Alternatives considered
Reuse the existing recovery-action flow only. That would keep
stopped-work detection implicit, make per-task watchdog assignment
harder to expose in the UI, and would not provide a durable
scoped-review issue for stalled task trees.
## Roadmap alignment
This is Paperclip control-plane lifecycle infrastructure for task
execution and recovery. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not
duplicate an existing planned core item.
## What Changed
- Added issue watchdog schema, migration, shared contracts, validators,
CRUD API, and service support.
- Added task watchdog scheduler/classifier behavior, scoped mutation
enforcement, adapter wake context, and default watchdog mandate
guidance.
- Added UI surfaces for configuring watchdogs on new/existing tasks,
viewing watchdog activity, and exposing the experimental setting.
- Added docs for the user-facing task watchdog workflow and
implementation semantics.
- Gated new-task watchdog setup behind `enableTaskWatchdogs` and blocked
cheap status-only recovery runs from approval mutations.
- Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the idempotent watchdog
migration from the branch-local `0102_issue_watchdogs` slot to
`0104_issue_watchdogs`.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by loading watchdog classifier input with
a recursive subtree query and centralizing the watchdog origin-kind
constant.
- Added and updated focused server/UI tests for watchdog routes,
scheduler/classifier behavior, scope boundaries, live task visibility,
settings, and new issue dialog behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `git diff --check`
- Verified the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this introduces a new task lifecycle surface touching DB
schema, server routes/services, adapter wake context, and UI task
configuration.
- Watchdog scheduling behavior depends on the new experimental setting
and runtime context checks behaving consistently across local and
production agents.
- The watchdog migration is idempotent (`IF NOT EXISTS` /
duplicate-object guards) so users who tried the previous branch-local
migration number should not get duplicate-object failures.
- CI and the second Greptile pass are pending after the latest
review-fix push.
> 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-class coding agent in the Paperclip workspace. Exact
runtime model id and context window were not exposed to the agent; tool
use and local command 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots — N/A per Paperclip task instruction: do not add
screenshots/images to this PR unless they are specifically part of the
work.
- [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.
> - Issue work mode controls how a task starts and how the conversation
composer frames the operator's intent.
> - Paperclip already supports standard agent execution and planning
mode, but there is no lightweight mode for asking a question without
immediately implying execution or plan drafting.
> - That gap makes low-commitment clarification workflows look like
normal task execution.
> - This pull request adds an explicit Ask mode and threads it through
shared contracts, server heartbeat context, and the issue composer UI.
> - The benefit is that operators can create or switch a task into a
question-oriented mode while preserving existing agent and planning
flows.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Inline feature request
follows the repository feature request template.
### Subsystem affected
Cross-cutting: `packages/shared`, `server/`, and `ui/`.
### Problem or motivation
Issue conversations currently distinguish standard agent work from
planning work, but question-first conversations do not have a clear
public mode in the shared contract or UI. Operators who want to ask an
agent a focused question have to use standard mode, which can imply
normal task execution, or planning mode, which asks for a plan rather
than an answer.
### Proposed solution
Add Ask as a first-class issue work mode. It should be selectable from
issue creation and issue chat, cycle alongside Standard and Planning
from the keyboard shortcut/menu, appear distinctly in composer styling,
and be included in heartbeat context so agents know to answer directly
instead of executing or drafting a plan.
### Alternatives considered
- Keep using standard mode for questions: rejected because it does not
communicate answer-only intent to the agent or the UI.
- Reuse planning mode for questions: rejected because planning mode asks
for a plan and is semantically different from asking a question.
- Add only local UI copy: rejected because the mode needs to be
represented in the shared contract and server heartbeat context to be
reliable.
### Roadmap alignment
This is a focused issue-workflow improvement. `ROADMAP.md` was checked
and no duplicate planned core work was found.
### Additional context
Related public searches performed before opening this PR:
- GitHub PR search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip`
- GitHub issue search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip`
- GitHub PR search for `"work mode" "ask" repo:paperclipai/paperclip`
No duplicate PR was found.
## What Changed
- Added `ask` to the shared issue work-mode contract and validation
coverage.
- Included issue work mode in heartbeat context summaries so agents can
see standard, planning, and ask state.
- Added Ask mode metadata, styling, composer tone handling, and
selection/cycling behavior in the issue chat/new issue UI.
- Updated focused tests for shared validators, heartbeat context, and
affected UI work-mode flows.
## Verification
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
The broader targeted command passed 8 test files / 245 tests.
Visual reference for Standard/Planning/Ask composer states:
https://gist.github.com/cryppadotta/714d8590bac55500a65e7e16de5bb4b8
It emitted an expected warning from an existing server test fixture
about a missing run-log fixture while verifying derived issue comment
metadata.
## Risks
Low to moderate risk. This adds a new enum value that crosses shared,
server, and UI contracts. Existing standard and planning modes are
preserved, but any downstream code assuming only two non-terminal work
modes may need to handle `ask`.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent in Paperclip CodexCoder mode, with
shell, git, GitHub connector, and local test execution tools. Context
window and exact hosted model snapshot are not exposed in this runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`,
`feat/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or
instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane people use to create, configure, and
run AI agents for work.
> - This change sits in the server-side agent lifecycle and
secret-binding subsystem, where adapter config `env` entries can
reference company secrets.
> - An incident (while trying to configure a Novita sandbox) showed that
an agent can reach a broken runtime state if `adapterConfig.env`
contains `secret_ref` entries but the matching `company_secret_bindings`
rows are missing.
> - The immediate run-path guard and error-surfacing work made the
failure diagnosable, but they did not fully prevent new broken agents
from being created.
> - The risk came from create and approval flows being responsible for
remembering to sync bindings at each call site, which is easy to miss as
new flows are added.
> - This pull request moves the invariant into `agentService`
create/update/activate paths, keeps the existing hire-flow fix, and adds
regression coverage for create, update, and legacy pending-approval
recovery.
> - The benefit is that agent secret binding integrity is enforced
closer to the data mutation point, so future callers inherit the
protection automatically.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #8309
### What happened?
A Paperclip agent could persist `adapterConfig.env` `secret_ref` entries
without matching agent-scoped `company_secret_bindings` rows. When that
happened, the config UI could still look configured, but the real run
path failed pre-dispatch because the secret was not actually bound to
that agent.
### Expected behavior
Every normal agent create, config-update, and pending-approval
activation flow should leave the agent with secret bindings that match
its persisted secret-ref env config.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Create or activate an agent through a flow that persists
`adapterConfig.env` secret refs without synchronizing
`company_secret_bindings`.
2. Observe that the config state can still appear populated.
3. Start a run for that agent.
4. Observe that pre-dispatch binding validation fails because the secret
reference exists but the agent binding does not.
### Deployment mode
Local dev (`pnpm dev`)
### Installation method
Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`)
### Agent adapter(s) involved
- Claude Code
- Not adapter-specific (core bug)
### Database mode
Embedded PGlite / embedded local dev database flow
### Access context
Board (human operator) created or approved the agent; agent runtime
later consumed the config.
### Additional context
This PR focuses on preventing new broken states from normal service
flows and on backfilling the covered legacy pending-approval activation
path.
## What Changed
- Kept the existing branch-local hire-flow fix that synchronized
bindings for route and approval paths.
- Moved the binding integrity invariant into `agentService.create()`,
`agentService.update()` when `adapterConfig` changes, and
`agentService.activatePendingApproval()`.
- Added `server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts`
covering create-time sync, update-time resync, and backfill for legacy
pending-approval agents.
- Removed now-redundant route-layer and approval-layer binding sync
calls once the service layer became authoritative.
- Simplified the affected unit tests so route/approval tests no longer
assert service-owned binding writes directly.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/approvals-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts`
## Risks
- Low to medium risk.
- This changes where secret-binding synchronization is enforced, so any
unexpected caller that relied on upper-layer manual sync behavior could
behave differently.
- Agent create/update/activation flows now perform binding
synchronization consistently, which adds binding-table writes at those
mutation points.
- This PR does not retroactively scan and heal every already-broken
historical agent row; it prevents and backfills through the covered
service flows.
> 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 Codex class model via `codex_local`
- Session model family: GPT-5 Codex
- Tool-assisted coding with shell, git, HTTP, and local test execution
- Reasoning mode: medium interactive tool-use workflow
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Operators manage both company-scoped configuration and
instance-level runtime/admin settings from the board UI
> - Instance settings previously lived as their own top-level sidebar
area, separate from the company settings context operators already use
> - That split made settings navigation feel heavier and made instance
configuration less discoverable from the settings tab
> - This pull request moves instance settings under company settings
while preserving the existing instance settings routes and plugin/admin
surfaces
> - The benefit is a smaller primary sidebar and a more coherent
settings hierarchy for operators
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #338
- Internal: PAP-10491, PAP-10538
## What Changed
- Moved instance settings navigation under the company settings area.
- Added route helpers and sidebar entries for nested instance settings
paths.
- Updated plugin/admin settings routes to use the company settings
instance scope.
- Preserved legacy instance-settings bookmarks through compatibility
redirects that keep the active company prefix.
- Updated focused UI and plugin tests for the new navigation shape.
- Stabilized the process-loss retry test that was failing the serialized
server shard in CI.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` and
pushed the current head.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/CompanySettingsSidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/access/CompanySettingsNav.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/instance-settings.test.ts
ui/src/components/InstanceSidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/Layout.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/PluginPage.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/instance-settings.test.ts
ui/src/components/CompanySettingsSidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/access/CompanySettingsNav.test.tsx
ui/src/components/Layout.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "queues
exactly one retry when the recorded local pid is dead"`
- `pnpm test:run:serialized -- --shard-index 0 --shard-count 4`
- GitHub PR checks are green on head
`fe7b0955169dcae55cbe10889c1876a70ab0b80c`, including `verify`, `General
tests (server)`, all serialized server shards, build, e2e, policy,
security checks, and Greptile.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
## Risks
- Medium UI/navigation risk: instance settings links are intentionally
moving under company settings, so stale external bookmarks to legacy
paths rely on the compatibility routing in this branch.
- Low test-only risk from the CI stabilization commit: it makes the
recovery assertion select the actual retry run by `retryOfRunId` instead
of whichever non-original run appears first.
- No database migrations.
- No dependency lockfile or workflow changes.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell/tool execution in
a local repository worktree. Exact context window was not exposed by the
runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] 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
agents for work.
> - Agent runtime state is surfaced in both the server API and the board
UI so operators can tell whether an agent is idle, running, paused, or
in error.
> - When an agent is already in `error`, the existing pause/resume
action slot is not useful because there is no running work to pause.
> - Operators need a direct, audited recovery path that clears the stale
error state only for agents in the same company.
> - This pull request adds a company-scoped clear-error mutation,
exposes the shared API contract, and wires the board action cluster to
show Clear error in the pause/resume slot for errored agents.
> - The benefit is that operators can recover CEO/CTO-style errored
agents without resorting to database edits or unrelated session reset
actions.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #4021
Paperclip issue: PAP-10515 — right now the CEO and CTO agents are in
error state, but there is no way to clear the error; they appear
otherwise fine.
## What Changed
- Added shared constants, API path, and agent status type support for a
company-scoped clear-error action.
- Added the server service and route to clear an agent from `error` back
to `idle`, with company access enforcement and activity logging.
- Added OpenAPI/docs coverage for the clear-error endpoint.
- Added backend coverage for service behavior and cross-tenant
authorization.
- Updated the board agent action cluster to show a red-tinted Clear
error button only when `agent.status === "error"`.
- Updated agent properties to show a red active last-error indicator
only while the agent is currently errored.
- Added UI component tests for the error-state action and the non-error
pause/resume behavior.
## Verification
Local:
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agents-service-clear-error.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts
ui/src/components/AgentActionButtons.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts`
PR checks:
- Main Paperclip workflow is green on
`a7378e584d50594e7bd507a1a02985bfaaa5abf8`.
- Greptile is 5/5 with no files requiring special attention and no new
comments on the latest review.
- `commitperclip PR Review` is still red because its security-gate step
canceled after filing a draft advisory; the linked `security-review`
check is neutral and says the draft advisory is not a merge block.
Visual artifact:
- 
## Risks
Low to medium risk. The mutation is intentionally narrow, but reviewers
should check that clearing `lastError`/`lastRunError` and returning to
`idle` is the desired recovery semantics for every adapter state. The
remaining red check is from the external commitperclip security-review
workflow, not from the code/test workflow for this PR.
> 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-family coding model, tool-assisted with local shell,
git, GitHub CLI, and targeted Vitest 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The affected subsystem is the heartbeat execution path that turns
issue assignment into adapter-backed work in a selected workspace.
> - PAP-10409 and sibling follow-ups failed before useful adapter output
because project/workspace identity became incoherent.
> - A project-workspace-linked child issue could keep
`projectWorkspaceId` / execution workspace state while losing
`projectId`, then a git-sensitive local adapter could fall through
toward an invalid fallback cwd.
> - Paperclip needs to treat coherent workspace identity as part of the
live-path contract, not only as post-failure cleanup.
> - This pull request documents that rule, repairs issue inheritance,
and blocks git-sensitive adapter launch before it can run from the wrong
cwd.
> - The benefit is a bounded recovery path: affected issues are repaired
explicitly, future malformed workspaces fail fast with a clear recovery
action, and the UI surfaces that reason.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #7646
Bug report fields:
- Summary: adapter-backed follow-up issues can fail before doing work
when issue creation/inheritance preserves workspace ids but drops
project identity.
- Affected issues: internal Paperclip issues PAP-10408 through
PAP-10412, especially PAP-10409.
- Steps to reproduce: create a project-scoped parent/follow-up tree
where a child issue keeps `projectWorkspaceId` or an inherited execution
workspace but has `projectId: null`, then launch a git-sensitive local
adapter such as `codex_local`.
- Expected behavior: Paperclip derives or preserves coherent project
identity during issue creation, and heartbeat refuses malformed
git-sensitive workspace launches with one clear recovery action.
- Actual behavior before this PR: the run could reach adapter bootstrap
with an incoherent workspace context and fail with git errors such as
`fatal: not a git repository (or any parent up to mount point /srv)`.
- Root cause: child/follow-up issue inheritance preserved workspace
execution context without coherent project context. That let heartbeat
workspace resolution/adapter launch reach a fallback cwd instead of
refusing the malformed workspace state up front.
## What Changed
- Documented the adapter workspace-coherence live-path precondition in
`doc/execution-semantics.md`.
- Updated issue creation/inheritance so workspace-inheriting issues
preserve or derive project identity, while existing mismatch validation
still rejects incoherent project/workspace combinations.
- Added a heartbeat preflight guard for git-sensitive local adapters
that validates effective cwd, persisted workspace identity, project
workspace identity, and required git metadata before launch.
- Added `workspace_validation` recovery actions for this failure class
and ensured the source issue gets a visible, idempotent recovery
comment.
- Surfaced workspace-validation recovery state in issue rows, blocked
notices, and recovery action cards, including the manual-repair wake
policy label.
- Added focused regression coverage for issue inheritance, all heartbeat
workspace-validation guard branches, recovery display helpers, and UI
recovery components.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts`
- Result: 1 test file passed, 68 tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx`
- Result: 1 test file passed, 12 tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx`
- Result: 2 test files passed, 18 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- Result: passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/recovery-display.test.ts`
- Result: 7 test files passed, 200 tests passed before the final
guard-branch additions; the changed server file was re-run above.
- UI coverage: `ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`
contains rendered scenarios for the generic recovery chip,
workspace-validation recovery chip, blocked notice indicator, recovery
action card, and issue-row chip.
- Screenshot capture attempt: Storybook started successfully on
`http://127.0.0.1:6016/`, but screenshots could not be captured in this
runner because `agent-browser` launched an unusable Chrome binary and
Playwright Chromium failed on missing system library `libatk-1.0.so.0`;
the runner is non-root and lacks passwordless sudo for installing
browser dependencies.
- Hosted CI on final commit `969594e7` is green, including `verify`,
`Build`, `Typecheck + Release Registry`, `General tests (server)`,
workspace suites, serialized server suites, `Canary Dry Run`, and `e2e`.
- Roadmap checked: no duplicate roadmap item; this is a tightly scoped
reliability fix for existing heartbeat/workspace behavior.
- Duplicate PR search checked: no open PR matched `workspace coherence
adapter cwd`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: heartbeat launch is stricter for git-sensitive local
adapters and can now block malformed workspace states before adapter
execution.
- Mitigation: the guard is limited to local git-sensitive adapters and
records a source-scoped recovery action with structured evidence instead
of retrying indefinitely.
- Compatibility: valid project/workspace execution paths continue
normally; explicit project/workspace mismatches remain rejected.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based `codex_local` coding agent with terminal/tool
use. Work was produced through Paperclip issue execution with focused
local test runs.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The board UI is the control surface for issues, projects, agents,
goals, workspaces, and operator settings.
> - The existing navigation and list surfaces make several
high-frequency workflows feel harder to scan than they should,
especially around projects and agents.
> - The product direction is to improve those surfaces without breaking
the existing route model or forcing a new IA on every operator at once.
> - This pull request now keeps the dependent IA, project identity, and
agent-list visual refresh work together while the Issue-to-Task copy
migration is split into #7651.
> - The benefit is a clearer left nav, better project identity, denser
agent/project list rows, and brand-aligned status treatment while
preserving the classic default experience behind a flag.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #7645
Refs #7651
Internal planning/work references: PAP-53, PAP-56, PAP-58, PAP-59,
PAP-60, PAP-61, PAP-68, PAP-69, PAP-70, PAP-71, PAP-72, PAP-75, PAP-76,
PAP-80, PAP-85, PAP-86, PAP-87, PAP-88, PAP-89.
## What Changed
- Adds `enableStreamlinedLeftNavigation`, defaulting off, and gates
sidebar presentation so classic navigation remains the default.
- Adds project icon persistence, validation, portability, picker UI, and
`ProjectTile` rendering while defaulting new projects to neutral gray.
- Adds projects-list task-count and budget summary data with focused
server/shared/UI coverage.
- Refreshes agent list rows, row actions, active/recent sidebar
behavior, and status capsule/chip styling for the approved brand state
system.
- Removes the placeholder Conference room and Artifacts nav/routes from
the finalized experimental nav direction.
- Removes `pnpm-lock.yaml` and the Issue-to-Task copy migration from
this PR diff; the copy migration now lives in #7651.
## Verification
- Existing branch verification from the authored commits: UI typecheck,
targeted unit tests, and light/dark visual checks for `/agents`, agent
detail, and design-guide status states.
- Maintainer cleanup verification on `75e34e5`: `git diff --check
origin/master...HEAD` passed, the `design/` diff is empty, and the PR
diff is 61 files, below Greptile's 100-file review limit.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` passed.
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx` passed: 1 file, 8 tests.
- CI and Greptile should rerun on the latest push.
## Risks
- Broad UI surface area: the experimental flag keeps the classic nav
default, but changed shared components such as `EntityRow`,
`ProjectTile`, and agent status badges could affect multiple pages.
- Database migration: `projects.icon` is additive and nullable, but
migration ordering and portability import/export must stay aligned.
- The Issue-to-Task copy migration is now separated into #7651, so
reviewers should evaluate this PR as IA/project/agent presentation work
only.
- Visual regressions are possible across smaller widths because the PR
intentionally changes dense list-row layouts.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 assisted the original feature commits.
Paperclip-Paperclip agents assisted some planning/design commits. Codex
/ GPT-5-class coding agent with shell, GitHub CLI, and repository access
performed this PR-readiness cleanup and split.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent work is coordinated through issues, comments, interactions,
and approval-style handoffs.
> - Existing issue-thread interactions could ask questions, suggest
tasks, and request confirmation, but they did not support a structured
checkbox confirmation payload for choosing one or more options.
> - That gap made board/user confirmations harder to validate
consistently across API callers, plugin helpers, CLI tooling, and the
UI.
> - This pull request adds the shared checkbox confirmation contract,
server handling, client helpers, and issue-thread UI needed to render
and submit structured selections.
> - The benefit is that agents can request bounded multi-select
confirmations in the same audited issue-thread flow as other Paperclip
interactions.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- No public GitHub issue found for this exact branch. Internal Paperclip
issue: PAP-10415 / PAP-10441 requested creating this PR for the checkbox
confirmation issue-thread UI component work.
- GitHub duplicate search performed for checkbox confirmation /
issue-thread interaction PRs; no matching open PR was found.
- Related issue search result `#7497` was unrelated company file cleanup
work, so it is not linked as a related issue.
## What Changed
- Added shared types, validators, constants, and tests for
`request_checkbox_confirmation` interactions.
- Extended server issue-thread interaction service and routes for
checkbox confirmation creation, validation, expiration, and response
handling.
- Added CLI, MCP, and plugin SDK helper coverage so external callers can
create the new interaction shape consistently.
- Updated the issue-thread interaction UI to render checkbox
confirmations with min/max bounds, selection summaries, stale-target
states, and accept/decline flows.
- Documented the checkbox confirmation interaction contract in the
Paperclip skill/API reference.
## Verification
- Rebased cleanly on `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` fetched into
`public-gh/master` at `a4fa0eaf5`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or
`.github/workflows` changes.
- Ran focused tests with `NODE_ENV=test`:
```sh
NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links
NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/issue-subresources.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/project-goal.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts
```
Result: 8 test files passed, 78 tests passed.
- CI on latest head `63b9e55` is green.
- Greptile Review passed on latest head; GraphQL review-thread check
shows all Greptile threads resolved.
## Risks
- Medium surface area because the interaction contract touches shared
validators, server routes/services, UI rendering, CLI, MCP, plugin SDK
helpers, and docs.
- No database migrations are included.
- `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repository lockfile
policy.
- UI screenshots are not attached because the task explicitly requested
not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the
work; component tests cover the new rendering and interaction states.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository file access,
shell command execution, git/GitHub CLI tooling, and Paperclip
control-plane API access. Exact hosted model ID/context-window metadata
is not exposed inside 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Each agent has a heartbeat scheduler that wakes it on timers and on
events; every wake spawns an adapter (Claude / Codex / …) run that bills
the operator's subscription
> - When an operator archives a company, the agents inside it remain in
invokable states — the heartbeat scheduler never consults company status
— so timers keep firing and event-driven wakes (comments, mentions,
blockers-resolved, etc.) keep cascading
> - On real deployments this silently drains the operator's
subscription: idle archived companies wake their CEOs hourly, plus any
cross-company event cascade
> - This pull request enforces "archived ⇒ never spawns a run" as a
structural invariant by guarding the wake path AND cascading agent state
on archive/reactivate
> - The benefit is that archived companies stop billing the operator,
and the UI/queue stays consistent with the invariant
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`:
- `enqueueWakeup()` loads the company and short-circuits when status is
not `active`. Background sources (timer, automation, events) write a
`company.inactive` skipped wake and return `null`; explicit user invokes
throw a `conflict` so the UI surfaces the real reason.
- `tickTimers()` joins agents to active companies so the scheduler does
not iterate archived-company agents at all (no skip-row noise).
- `server/src/services/companies.ts`:
- `archive(id, actor?)` pauses runnable agents with `pauseReason =
"company_archived"` inside the transaction (preserving
`pending_approval`, `terminated`, and agents paused for unrelated
reasons), then cancels `queued`/`running` heartbeat runs after the
transaction commits.
- `update(id, data, actor?)` reverses the cascade only for agents whose
`pauseReason === "company_archived"` on the `archived → active`
transition; manually-paused agents stay paused.
- Both methods emit activity-log entries (`company.archived` with
`agentsPaused` + `runsCancelled`, `company.reactivated` with
`agentsRestored`) so the audit trail fires regardless of caller.
- `packages/shared/src/constants.ts` + `server/src/services/budgets.ts`:
add `company_archived` to the legal `PauseReason` union so the
restorable marker is a first-class value.
-
`packages/db/src/migrations/0094_backfill_archived_company_agent_pauses.sql`:
backfill so existing archived-company agents become `paused /
company_archived` (excludes `pending_approval`).
- `ui/src/lib/activity-format.ts`: add the `company.reactivated` label.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/companies-service.test.ts` — archive
cascade, reactivate cascade, and activity-log entries (with counts) all
pass.
- `npx vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-archived-company-guard.test.ts` — timer +
on-demand + event-wake paths all blocked for archived companies;
`company.inactive` skipped-wake row written; user-initiated wakes throw
`conflict`.
- `pnpm typecheck` — clean.
- Manual repro from the bug description: archive a company, wait an
interval / post a comment on one of its issues, observe zero new
heartbeat runs.
## Risks
- Migration `0094` is a single bulk UPDATE on `agents` joined to
archived `companies`. On large deployments it briefly holds row locks on
archived-company agent rows; should be quick because the predicate is
narrow (`status NOT IN (paused, terminated, pending_approval)` and
`companies.status = 'archived'`).
- New `pauseReason` value (`company_archived`) is opaque to older
clients that only know the previous union. Acceptable because the union
is read as plain text and the contract is sync'd in the same change.
- Behavior change for users: invoking an agent in an archived company
now fails with a conflict instead of silently spawning a run. Intended.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic) — model `claude-opus-4-7` ("Opus 4.7"), Claude Code
CLI, with tool use (Read/Edit/Bash/Grep). No extended thinking 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 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 — N/A, no UI changes beyond an activity-log label string
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Related Work
Fixes#1348 (`[Bug] Archived companies still running heartbeats and
consuming tokens`).
Prior attempts and parallel work in this area:
- #1365 and #1429 by @hungdqdesign (March 2026) — both closed without
merging. Same three-layer shape (`tickTimers` / `enqueueWakeup` /
`resumeQueuedRuns` + archive-route cancellation) targeting #1348. Credit
for first publicly proposing the wake-path-guard approach.
- #5865 by @stubbi (May 2026, open) — adds the same `companies.status !=
'archived'` joins to `tickTimers`, `enqueueWakeup`, `resumeQueuedRuns`,
**and** routines `tickScheduledTriggers`, bundled with plugin-table
tenant isolation (`plugin_entities` / `plugin_job_runs` / `plugin_logs`
/ `plugin_webhook_deliveries` get a `companyId` FK with `ON DELETE
CASCADE`). This PR is narrower — it does not touch routines or plugin
tables — but adds the **archive cascade** (pause agents with
`pauseReason = "company_archived"`), the **reactivate reverse**
(un-pause only that subset), the **`company_archived` pause-reason
marker**, and a **backfill migration** for pre-existing archived
companies, which #5865 does not include. Happy to coordinate sequencing
or rebase if #5865 lands first.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through issues, documents,
runs, and durable company-scoped state.
> - Issue documents are where agents and operators capture plans,
handoffs, and work products.
> - Before this change, document collaboration could only happen through
whole-document edits and detached issue comments.
> - Inline document annotations need stable anchors, revision-aware
persistence, and UI affordances that do not break existing document
editing.
> - This pull request adds company-scoped document annotation threads,
comments, anchor snapshots, API routes, and board UI.
> - The benefit is that operators and agents can discuss specific
document passages without losing context as documents evolve.
## What Changed
- Added document annotation tables, schema exports, shared types,
validators, anchor hashing, and text-anchor helpers.
- Added server-side document annotation services and issue routes for
listing, creating, commenting, resolving, and reopening annotation
threads.
- Included annotation summaries in relevant issue document reads and
backup/recovery document workspace behavior.
- Added React UI for inline document highlights, comment panels, mobile
sheet behavior, deep-link focus, and resolved/open filtering.
- Added annotation design artifacts, Storybook coverage, screenshots,
and a screenshot helper script.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` and
renumbered the annotation migration from `0085_old_swarm` to
`0091_old_swarm`; the SQL uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards so environments
that previously applied the old migration number can safely apply the
new one.
- Adjusted the new annotation UI tests to use a local async flush helper
because this workspace's React 19.2.4 export does not expose
`React.act`.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/document-anchors.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/document-annotations-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/DocumentAnnotationLayer.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/document-annotation-hash.test.ts
ui/src/lib/document-annotation-selection.test.ts`
- Confirmed `git diff --check` passes.
- Confirmed no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` files are
included in the PR diff.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this adds new persisted annotation tables and routes
across db/shared/server/ui.
- Migration risk is reduced by moving the branch migration to
`0091_old_swarm` after upstream `0090_resource_memberships` and keeping
the SQL idempotent for old `0085_old_swarm` adopters.
- UI risk is mostly around text range anchoring and panel positioning
across long documents, folded content, and mobile layouts; the PR
includes focused unit coverage and design screenshots.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-using software engineering
mode. Context window size is not exposed in this Paperclip runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through a company-scoped
control plane.
> - Plugins extend that control plane, but plugin workers still call
back into host APIs.
> - Those worker-to-host calls need the same company boundary guarantees
as normal API routes.
> - Plugin action handlers also need authenticated actor context from
the host instead of trusting caller-supplied params.
> - This pull request hardens plugin bridge/action scope and keeps
plugin operation issues out of normal issue surfaces.
> - The benefit is safer plugin execution with clearer authorization
boundaries and better test coverage.
## What Changed
- Added host-owned invocation context plumbing for nested plugin worker
calls.
- Added actor context to plugin `performAction` calls and test harness
helpers.
- Enforced company invocation scope on worker-to-host calls and filtered
company lists to the active invocation scope.
- Extended plugin action route tests for board and agent actor context,
spoofed company params, and cross-company rejection.
- Extended plugin worker manager coverage for invocation-scope
propagation.
- Filtered typed and legacy plugin operation issue origins from default
issue/inbox lists.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build`
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
packages/plugins/sdk/tests/host-client-factory.test.ts
packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-worker-manager.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`
Note: embedded Postgres issue-service tests reported host-level Postgres
init skip for 47 tests; the non-embedded targeted tests passed.
## Risks
- Medium: plugin host authorization paths are sensitive, and external
plugins may rely on previously loose company params.
- Mitigation: the change only tightens calls when the host attached a
company invocation scope and includes explicit tests for board, agent,
and nested worker calls.
> 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 via `codex_local`, tool-enabled coding session;
exact context window not exposed by this runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies by keeping
task ownership, approvals, and operator control inside one control
plane.
> - Agent permissions and plugin-hosted company settings sit on the
boundary between autonomy and governance.
> - V1 needs scoped task assignment rules, plugin extension points, and
clearer company access surfaces without weakening company boundaries.
> - The branch builds the core authorization service, plugin SDK/host
APIs, and UI simplifications needed to support those controls.
> - Paperclip EE plugin surfaces were intentionally moved out of this
core PR per review direction, so this PR now carries only the public
core/plugin infrastructure work.
> - The latest updates preserve the PAP-9937 branch changes that belong
in this PR, remove the `design/` artifacts, and exclude the experimental
`plugin-briefs` package.
> - Greptile feedback was applied through the authorization/audit paths
and the final cleanup commit was re-reviewed at 5/5 with no unresolved
Greptile threads.
> - The benefit is safer assignment control with extension hooks for
richer permission products while preserving simple defaults for normal
operators.
## What Changed
- Added scoped task-assignment authorization decisions and routed
issue/agent assignment mutations through the authorization service.
- Added plugin SDK and host APIs for company settings slots,
authorization policy/grant management, assignment previews, and bridge
invocation scope propagation.
- Simplified core company access UI and moved advanced controls behind
plugin-provided settings surfaces.
- Added retry-now affordances for blocked issue next-step notices.
- Added protected-assignment enforcement for persisted
agent/project/issue policies, including explicit-grant fallback
behavior.
- Added incremental principal-access compatibility backfill for active
agent memberships and role-default human permission grants.
- Added the Markdown code block wrap action fix from the latest branch
changes.
- Removed `design/` artifacts from the PR and removed
`packages/plugins/plugin-briefs` from the final diff.
- Addressed Greptile feedback for plugin actor sanitization, legacy
membership handling, audit pagination, unknown grant-scope metadata, and
startup test mocks.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 2 files passed, 54
tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 3 files passed, 62
tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-access-authorization-host-services.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` -> 3 files
passed, 28 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` -> passed.
- `git diff --check` -> passed.
- `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs` -> passed.
- `CI=true pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` -> passed
with no lockfile update.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.interaction.test.tsx` -> 1 test passed.
- `git ls-files design packages/plugins/plugin-briefs | wc -l` -> 0.
- GitHub CI on `40cd83b53` -> all checks passed, merge state `CLEAN`.
- Greptile on `40cd83b53` -> 5/5, 102 files reviewed, 0
comments/annotations added, 0 unresolved review threads.
- Confirmed the PR diff contains no `design/`,
`packages/plugins/plugin-briefs`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, or
`.github/workflows` changes.
## Risks
- Medium: task assignment authorization paths are behaviorally stricter
for protected/private policy data, so existing plugin-authored policies
may block assignment until explicit grants or approval flows are
configured.
- Medium: plugin-host authorization APIs expand the surface area
available to trusted plugins and need careful review for company
scoping.
- Low: startup now performs a principal-access compatibility backfill,
but the migration and runtime backfill use conflict-tolerant inserts.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled workflow with shell,
git, 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators need to inspect what agents changed inside execution and
project workspaces.
> - The existing workspace detail views did not provide a first-party
rich diff surface for staged, unstaged, head, renamed, binary,
oversized, and untracked changes.
> - The plugin system is the intended extension point for optional rich
UI surfaces.
> - This pull request adds a workspace diff plugin plus host services
and shared contracts so Changes tabs can render workspace diffs through
plugin slots.
> - The diff-renderer dependency should stay owned by the plugin package
rather than the core UI app.
> - The dependency surface must stay aligned with repository PR policy,
including intentionally omitting `pnpm-lock.yaml` from the PR.
> - The benefit is a more reviewable workspace surface without
hard-coding the renderer into every page.
## What Changed
- Added `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff`, including diff
normalization, plugin manifest/worker/UI entrypoints, and focused plugin
tests.
- Kept `@pierre/diffs` scoped to `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff`;
removed the core UI lab diff-renderer surface and direct UI package
dependency.
- Added shared workspace diff types and validators, plus plugin SDK
surface for workspace diff host services.
- Added server workspace diff service support and route coverage for
execution/project workspace diff flows.
- Wired Execution Workspace and Project Workspace Changes tabs to load
the diff plugin, including loading/error fallback behavior.
- Added UI tests and fixtures for the Changes tabs and plugin bridge
behavior.
- Added the new plugin package manifest to the Docker deps stage so PR
policy can validate dependency coverage.
- Addressed review hardening around empty untracked patches, workspace
path exposure, project workspace read capability checks, and default
base refs.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff test`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/validators/workspace-diff.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-diff-service.test.ts
ui/src/pages/ProjectWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs`
- Browser screenshot captured from the local worktree dev server:
https://files.catbox.moe/ofdpsp.png
- Confirmed branch is rebased onto `public-gh/master`,
`.github/workflows/pr.yml` is not included in the PR diff,
`ui/package.json` is not included in the PR diff, and `pnpm-lock.yaml`
is not included in the PR diff.
## Risks
- Medium UI integration risk: the Changes tab depends on the plugin slot
and host diff service path.
- Medium dependency risk: this adds `@pierre/diffs` in the plugin
package, but `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally omitted per packaging
instructions because repository automation manages lockfile updates.
- Current CI blocker: downstream frozen installs fail until the
repository policy path for new plugin package dependencies is chosen.
- Diff rendering edge cases are covered for common working-tree and head
diff states, but very large repositories may still expose performance
limits.
- No migrations are included.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 class coding model, tool-enabled local execution
environment. Exact context window was not exposed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where work
must end with a clear disposition rather than ambiguous agent liveness.
> - Recovery currently detects stalled or missing-next-step issues, but
source issue recovery can become split across child recovery issues,
blockers, and comments.
> - That makes it harder for operators and agents to see who owns
recovery and what exact action is needed on the original issue.
> - Source-scoped recovery actions give the original issue a first-class
active recovery state with owner, evidence, wake policy, and resolution
outcome.
> - This pull request adds the recovery-action data model, backend
reconciliation and resolution APIs, and board UI indicators/actions.
> - The benefit is clearer stalled-work recovery without losing source
issue context or relying on comments as the liveness path.
## What Changed
- Added the `issue_recovery_actions` schema, shared
types/constants/validators, and an idempotent
`0084_issue_recovery_actions` migration ordered after current `master`
migrations.
- Updated stranded/missing-disposition recovery to create source-scoped
recovery actions, wake the recovery owner on the source issue, and avoid
locking the source issue for recovery-action wakes.
- Added API support for reading active recovery actions on issue
detail/list surfaces and resolving them with restored, blocked,
cancelled, or false-positive outcomes.
- Require blocked recovery resolutions to have an unresolved first-class
blocker, and removed the UI shortcut that could mark recovery blocked
without a blocker selection path.
- Surfaced recovery indicators/actions in the issue UI, blocker notices,
active run panels, issue rows, and Storybook coverage.
- Updated docs and focused tests for recovery semantics, ownership,
races, stale comments, and UI behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts`
— 5 files, 72 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including
migration numbering check.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- Follow-up verification after blocker-resolution guard: `pnpm exec
vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 3 files, 27 tests passed.
- Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- UI states are available in
`ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`; screenshot
capture helper is `scripts/screenshot-recovery-card.cjs`.
## Risks
- Medium: recovery behavior changes from child recovery issue ownership
toward source-scoped actions, so operators may see stalled-work state in
new places.
- Migration risk is mitigated by using the next migration slot after
`master` and making the table/constraints/index creation idempotent for
anyone who previously applied the old branch-local
`0082_dizzy_master_mold` migration.
- Existing child recovery issue paths are still guarded for
already-created recovery issues, but new source-scoped flows should be
watched in CI and Greptile review.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use enabled for shell, Git,
GitHub, and local test execution. Context window not exposed by the
runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - There are many adapter types, one per agent-runtime product (Claude,
Codex, OpenCode, Cursor local CLI, etc.)
> - Cursor shipped a public TypeScript SDK on 2026-04-29 that exposes
Cursor's full hosted-agent platform (cloud VMs, harness, MCP, skills,
hooks)
> - Paperclip had no first-class adapter for this — agents that wanted
to use Cursor's managed cloud runtime had to fall back to the local CLI
adapter, which loses the cloud session, streaming, and durable run model
> - This PR adds a new `cursor_cloud` adapter built directly on
`@cursor/sdk`, with Paperclip's heartbeat mapped to Cursor's
durable-agent + per-run model
> - The benefit is that any Paperclip agent can now drive a Cursor cloud
agent across heartbeats with native session reuse, streaming, and
cancellation, while Paperclip remains the source of truth for issue/task
state
## What Changed
- New built-in adapter package `packages/adapters/cursor-cloud` (15
files, ~1.7k LOC) backed by `@cursor/sdk` ^1.0.12
- `src/server/execute.ts` — SDK-first lifecycle: `Agent.create` /
`Agent.resume` / `Agent.getRun` / `agent.send` / `run.stream` /
`run.wait`, with session reuse keyed on the (runtime env type, env name,
repo set) tuple
- `src/server/session.ts` — codec for `cursorAgentId` + `latestRunId` +
repo metadata, persisted in `runtime.sessionParams`
- `src/server/test.ts` — environment probe via `Cursor.me()` and
optional model validation via `Cursor.models.list()`
- `src/ui/parse-stdout.ts` + `src/cli/format-event.ts` — normalize
Cursor SDK message types (`status`, `thinking`, `assistant`, `user`,
`tool_call`, `tool_result`, `result`) into Paperclip transcript events
for the UI and CLI
- Registrations: `packages/shared/src/constants.ts`,
`packages/adapter-utils/src/session-compaction.ts`,
`server/src/adapters/{registry,builtin-adapter-types}.ts`,
`ui/src/adapters/{registry,adapter-display-registry}.ts` +
`ui/src/adapters/cursor-cloud/index.ts`, `cli/src/adapters/registry.ts`,
plus workspace deps in `cli`/`server`/`ui` `package.json`
- `ui/src/components/AgentConfigForm.tsx` — hide local-Cursor
`mode`/thinking-effort field for `cursor_cloud` (different config
surface)
- 11 vitest tests covering execute paths (fresh create, matching-resume,
active-run reattach, non-finished result), session codec round-trip,
transcript parsing, and config building
## Verification
Reviewer steps:
```bash
pnpm install
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-cursor-cloud typecheck # → clean
pnpm vitest run packages/adapters/cursor-cloud # → 11/11 passing
```
End-to-end check against a real Cursor cloud agent (requires
`CURSOR_API_KEY` and Cursor GitHub-app install on the target repo):
1. Create a `cursor_cloud` agent in Paperclip with `repoUrl` set to the
test repo, `repoStartingRef: main`, and `env.CURSOR_API_KEY` set
2. Trigger a heartbeat → adapter calls `Agent.create({ cloud: { env: {
type: "cloud" }, repos: [...] } })`, streams events, terminates on
`finished`
3. Trigger a second heartbeat → adapter calls `Agent.resume` or
`agent.send` follow-up depending on prior-run state, reusing
`cursorAgentId`
4. The Paperclip UI/CLI transcript reflects Cursor `status` / `thinking`
/ `assistant` events as they stream
5. Cancellation from Paperclip maps to `run.cancel()` or Cloud API v1
`cancelRun` for cross-heartbeat cancellation
A direct-SDK smoke run against a real repo (devinfoley/my_test_project @
main) confirmed: `Cursor.me()` ok → `Agent.create` → `agent.send` →
`run.stream()` (30 events) → terminal status `finished` in ~11s.
## Risks
- **New adapter, additive only.** No existing adapter or registry is
replaced; current `cursor` local-CLI adapter is untouched. Default
behavior of any existing agent is unchanged.
- **External dependency on `@cursor/sdk`.** Cursor's SDK is v1.0.x and
may evolve. Mocked unit tests cover the public surface used here; if the
SDK breaks compatibility we update the adapter independently.
- **Cost/budget.** `cursor_cloud` runs on Cursor's billed cloud VMs;
operators must understand they are spending money outside Paperclip's
budget controls when they enable this adapter. Same shape as other
API-billed adapters.
- **No webhook support in V1.** The SDK already provides
stream/wait/cancel/reattach, so V1 does not require a public callback
URL. If a future use case needs out-of-band wakes, we add a Cloud API v1
webhook bridge as a separate change. This is called out in the issue
plan document.
- **Lockfile.** Per repo policy, `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally not
in this PR — CI's lockfile workflow will update it on merge given the
manifest changes.
## Model Used
- Provider: Anthropic Claude (via Claude Code / Paperclip `claude_local`
adapter)
- Model: `claude-opus-4-7` (Claude Opus 4.7), knowledge cutoff January
2026
- Mode: standard tool-use with extended reasoning
- Context: ~200k token window
- Capabilities used: code generation, multi-file edits, shell/test
execution, GitHub PR workflow
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (11/11 in
`packages/adapters/cursor-cloud`)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (4 new test files,
11 cases)
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (the only UI change is hiding the local-Cursor mode field on
the `cursor_cloud` adapter — happy to attach a screenshot if the
reviewer wants one)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (issue
plan document supersedes the pre-SDK design; tracked in PAPA-203)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The plugin system needs host contracts and runtime support before
large plugins can integrate cleanly.
> - The source branch mixed the LLM Wiki package with supporting
host/runtime work, managed plugin skills, root-level storage spaces, and
a bookmarks reference plugin.
> - [PAP-9173](/PAP/issues/PAP-9173) asked for the current branch to be
split by file boundary: plugin package separately from everything else.
> - [PAP-9188](/PAP/issues/PAP-9188) clarified that LLM Wiki may have
plugin-local spaces, but Paperclip core should not reorganize top-level
local storage into spaces.
> - Follow-up review clarified that the bookmarks example should not
ship in this PR either.
> - This pull request contains the
non-`packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/` host/runtime work, keeps runtime
state under the selected Paperclip instance root, and no longer includes
the bookmarks example.
## What Changed
- Added/updated plugin host contracts, SDK types, worker RPC plumbing,
managed plugin skill support, and related server tests.
- Removed the bookmarks example plugin package and its
bundled-example/workspace references.
- Removed the root-level local spaces CLI/migration surface and restored
instance-root runtime defaults for config, db, logs, storage, secrets,
workspaces, projects, and adapter homes.
- Replaced shared root `space-paths` helpers with `home-paths` helpers
for core runtime storage.
- Tightened stranded recovery unique-conflict detection so concurrent
recovery scans reuse the raced recovery issue when Postgres errors are
wrapped.
- Kept `packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/` out of this PR diff;
plugin-local spaces remain in the stacked plugin-only PR.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/data-dir.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/home-paths.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts
packages/shared/src/home-paths.test.ts
packages/db/src/runtime-config.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-instructions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/runtime-config.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "reuses the
raced stranded recovery issue"` skipped locally because embedded
Postgres did not initialize on this macOS temp host; the code path was
typechecked and is covered by Linux CI.
- Boundary check: no core references remain for `PAPERCLIP_SPACE_ID`,
`spaces migrate-default`, `@paperclipai/shared/space-paths`,
`registerSpacesCommands`, or the removed bookmarks example.
- Previous PR head `4f23e034` had green GitHub checks: `verify`, all
four serialized server shards, `e2e`, `Canary Dry Run`, `policy`, Snyk,
and `Greptile Review`. Current head `582f466d` is re-running checks
after the bookmarks deletion.
## Risks
- Plugin host changes touch shared runtime paths, so regressions would
most likely appear in adapter startup, plugin loading, or local dev path
defaults.
- Removing the bookmarks example also removes one demonstration of
plugin database namespaces plus local-folder persistence; remaining
plugin examples still cover bundled example discovery and plugin host
flows.
- The plugin package itself is intentionally deferred to the stacked
plugin-only PR, where LLM Wiki plugin-local spaces live.
- Existing installs that tested the transient root-level spaces CLI
should stop using it; this PR intentionally removes that unsupported
migration surface 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 GPT-5 Codex via Codex CLI, tool use and local code execution
enabled; context window not exposed.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass, except where noted above
for host-specific embedded Postgres initialization
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Stacked follow-up: PR #5592 contains only
`packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/` and targets this branch.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies and needs secrets handling
to work across local development, hosted operators, and governed agent
execution.
> - The affected subsystem is the company-scoped secrets control plane:
database schema, server services/routes, CLI workflows, and the Secrets
settings UI.
> - The gap was that secrets were local-only and operators could not
manage provider vaults or import existing remote references without
exposing plaintext.
> - This branch adds provider vault configuration plus an AWS Secrets
Manager remote-import path while preserving company boundaries, binding
context, and audit trails.
> - I kept the PR to a single branch PR, removed unrelated
lockfile/package drift, rebased the full branch onto the current
`public-gh/master`, and addressed fresh Greptile findings.
> - The benefit is a reviewable implementation of provider-backed
secrets with focused tests covering provider selection, import
conflicts, deleted secret reuse, rotation guards, and AWS signing
behavior.
## What Changed
- Added provider vault support for company secrets, including provider
config storage, default vault handling, health checks, binding usage,
access events, and remote import preview/commit.
- Added an AWS Secrets Manager provider using SigV4 request signing,
bounded request timeouts, namespace guardrails, cached runtime
credential resolution, and external-reference linking without plaintext
reads.
- Added Secrets UI surfaces for vault management and remote import, plus
CLI/API documentation for setup and operations.
- Stabilized routine webhook secret binding paths and SSH
environment-driver fixture bindings discovered during verification.
- Addressed Greptile and CI findings: no lockfile/package drift,
monotonic migration metadata, disabled-vault default races, soft-deleted
secret hiding/recreate behavior, remove behavior with disabled vaults,
soft-deleted external-reference re-import, non-active rotation guards,
managed-secret soft deletion through PATCH, and per-call AWS SDK
credential client churn.
- Rebased this branch onto `public-gh/master` at `0e1a5828` and
force-pushed with lease to keep this as the single PR for the branch.
## Verification
- `git fetch public-gh master`
- `git rebase public-gh/master`
- `git diff --name-only public-gh/master...HEAD | grep
'^pnpm-lock\.yaml$' || true` confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not in the PR
diff.
- Confirmed migration ordering: master ends at `0081_optimal_dormammu`;
this PR adds `0082_dry_vision` and
`0083_company_secret_provider_configs`.
- Inspected migrations for repeat safety: new tables/indexes use `IF NOT
EXISTS`; foreign keys are guarded by `DO $$ ... IF NOT EXISTS`; column
additions use `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS`.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits.
- `pnpm test:run` ran the full stable Vitest path before the Greptile
follow-up commits; it completed with 3 timing-related failures under
parallel load: `codex-local-execute.test.ts`,
`cursor-local-execute.test.ts`, and `environment-service.test.ts`.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts
src/__tests__/cursor-local-execute.test.ts
src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts` passed on targeted rerun
(`24/24`).
- `pnpm build` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. Vite
reported existing chunk-size/dynamic-import warnings.
- After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`26/26`).
- After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
exec vitest run src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts
src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`39/39`).
- After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
typecheck` passed.
- Captured Storybook screenshots from `ui/storybook-static` for visual
review.
- Latest PR checks on `5ca3a5cf`: `policy`, serialized server suites
1/4-4/4, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, `security/snyk`, and `Greptile Review`
pass; aggregate `verify` is still registering the completed child
checks.
- Greptile review loop continued through the latest requested pass; all
Greptile review threads are resolved and the latest `Greptile Review`
check on `5ca3a5cf` passed with 0 comments added.
## Screenshots
Before: the provider-vault and remote-import surfaces did not exist on
`master`; these are after-state screenshots from the Storybook fixtures.
## Risks
- Migration risk: this adds new secret provider tables and extends
existing secret rows. The migrations were checked for monotonic ordering
and idempotent guards, but reviewers should still inspect upgrade
behavior carefully.
- Provider risk: AWS support uses direct SigV4 requests. Automated tests
cover signing, request timeouts, vault-config selection, namespace
guardrails, pending-version archival, sanitized provider errors, and
service-level cleanup paths. A real-vault AWS smoke test remains
deployment validation for an operator with AWS credentials rather than
an unverified merge blocker in this local branch.
- UI risk: the Secrets page and import dialog are large new surfaces;
screenshots are included above for reviewer inspection.
- Verification risk: the full local stable test command hit
parallel-load timing failures, although the exact failed files passed
when rerun directly.
- Operational risk: remote import intentionally avoids plaintext reads;
operators must understand that imported external references resolve at
runtime and may fail if AWS permissions change.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with local shell/tool use in the
Paperclip worktree. Exact context-window size was not exposed by the
runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies.
> - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board
users and agents coordinate execution.
> - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead
of immediate implementation work.
> - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution
comments from planning-oriented issue work.
> - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI
affordances for standard vs planning mode.
> - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed,
discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing
the normal issue workflow.
## What Changed
- Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB,
shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and
adapter heartbeat payloads.
- Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for
`issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations.
- Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction
behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested
follow-up issues.
- Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail
composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles.
- Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual
verification spec for planning-mode surfaces.
- Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable
planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`
- `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config
tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts`
## Screenshots
Desktop planning detail:
Desktop planning row:
Desktop staged standard toggle:
Mobile planning detail:
Mobile planning row:
## Risks
- Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The
migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied
an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final
numbered migration safely.
- Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter
heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by
defaulting missing values to `standard`.
- UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused
component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning
display and toggle behavior.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a local Paperclip worktree, with
shell/tool use. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this
runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Agent runs can end productively while the source issue still lacks a
durable final disposition.
> - That leaves the control plane unsure whether to resume, escalate, or
close the work.
> - Issue comments also need a presentation contract so system-authored
recovery notices can render as first-class thread messages without
overloading normal comments.
> - This pull request adds successful-run handoff recovery, comment
presentation metadata, and system notice rendering.
> - The benefit is stricter task liveness with clearer operator-facing
recovery state.
## What Changed
- Added successful-run handoff decisions, wake payloads, escalation
behavior, and recovery tests.
- Added issue comment presentation metadata with migration
`0078_white_darwin.sql` and shared/server/company portability support.
- Rendered recovery/system notices in issue chat with dedicated UI
components, fixtures, tests, and storybook/lab coverage.
- Included the current recovery model-profile hint patch so automatic
recovery follow-ups use the cheap profile.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts
ui/src/components/SystemNotice.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/system-notice-comment.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx`
## Risks
- Migration-bearing PR: merge this before any other branch that might
later add a migration.
- The branch touches both recovery services and issue-thread rendering,
so review should pay attention to recovery wake idempotency and comment
metadata compatibility.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with
shell/git/GitHub CLI 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The plugin system is the extension boundary for optional product
capabilities
> - Rich plugins need more than a worker entrypoint: they need scoped
database storage, local project folders, managed agents/routines, host
navigation, and reusable UI components
> - The LLM Wiki work exposed those missing host surfaces while keeping
plugin code outside the core control plane
> - This pull request expands the core plugin host, SDK, server APIs,
and UI bridge so plugins can declare and use those surfaces
> - The benefit is that future plugins can integrate with Paperclip
through documented, validated contracts instead of bespoke server or UI
imports
## What Changed
- Added plugin-managed database namespaces and migration tracking,
including Drizzle schema/migration files and SQL validation for
namespace isolation.
- Added server support for plugin local folders, managed agents, managed
routines, scoped plugin APIs, and plugin operation visibility.
- Expanded shared plugin manifest/types/validators and SDK
host/testing/UI exports for richer plugin surfaces.
- Added reusable UI pieces for file trees, managed routines, resizable
sidebars, route sidebars, and plugin bridge initialization.
- Updated plugin docs and example plugins to use the expanded host and
SDK surface.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-agents.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routines.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts
ui/src/api/plugins.test.ts ui/src/components/FileTree.test.tsx
ui/src/components/ResizableSidebarPane.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/PluginPage.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts` passed:
11 files, 67 tests.
- Confirmed this PR changes 89 files and does not include
`pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`.
## Risks
- Medium: this expands plugin host contracts across db/shared/server/ui
and includes a new core migration (`0076_useful_elektra.sql`).
- The plugin database namespace validator is intentionally restrictive;
plugin authors may need follow-up affordances for SQL patterns that
remain blocked.
- Merge this before the LLM Wiki plugin PR so the plugin can resolve the
new SDK and host APIs.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git/GitHub
workflow. Context window size was not exposed by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies where work
must stay observable, governable, and recoverable.
> - The task/heartbeat subsystem owns agent execution continuity, issue
state transitions, and visible recovery behavior.
> - Waiting on an external service is not the same as being blocked when
the assignee still owns a future check.
> - The gap was that agents had no first-class one-shot monitor state
for external-service waits, so recovery could look stalled or require ad
hoc comments.
> - This pull request adds bounded issue monitors that can wake the
owner, clear exhausted waits, and produce explicit recovery behavior.
> - It also surfaces monitor status in the board UI and documents when
to use monitors versus `blocked`.
> - The benefit is clearer liveness semantics for asynchronous waits
without weakening single-assignee task ownership.
## What Changed
- Added issue monitor fields, shared types, validators, constants, and
an idempotent `0075` migration for scheduled monitor state.
- Added server-side monitor scheduling, dispatch, recovery bounds,
activity logging, and external-ref redaction.
- Added board/agent route coverage for monitor permissions and child
monitor scheduling.
- Added issue detail/property UI for monitor state, a monitor activity
card, and Storybook stories for review surfaces.
- Documented monitor semantics and recovery policy behavior in
`doc/execution-semantics.md`.
- Addressed Greptile review feedback by preserving monitor state in
skipped-stage builders and making board monitor saves send `scheduledBy:
"board"`.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/activity-format.test.ts`
- First run passed 5 files and failed to collect 2 server suites because
the worktree was missing the optional `acpx/runtime` dependency.
- After `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`, reran the 2 failed suites
successfully.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts`
- `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__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- Storybook screenshot captured from
`http://127.0.0.1:6006/iframe.html?viewMode=story&id=product-issue-monitor-surfaces--monitor-surfaces`
with Playwright.
## Screenshots
## Risks
- Medium: this changes heartbeat recovery behavior for scheduled
external-service waits, so regressions could affect wake timing or
recovery issue creation.
- Migration risk is reduced by using `IF NOT EXISTS` for the new issue
monitor columns and index.
- External monitor references are treated as secret-adjacent and are
intentionally omitted from visible activity/wake payloads.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with repository tool use and terminal
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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots or Storybook review surfaces
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Agent heartbeat settings control how much parallel work one employee
can run
> - The previous default of 5 concurrent runs was too restrictive for
active local agent teams
> - The shared default, heartbeat clamp, docs, and route/import/UI
expectations need to agree
> - This pull request raises the default heartbeat concurrency to 20
while keeping explicit headroom up to 50 for power users
> - The benefit is higher throughput for agent teams without each new
agent needing manual runtime config edits
## What Changed
- Raised `AGENT_DEFAULT_MAX_CONCURRENT_RUNS` from 5 to 20.
- Raised the heartbeat service max clamp from 10 to 50, keeping the new
default below the ceiling.
- Updated V1 implementation docs and tests that assert default
imported/exported runtime config.
- Updated the new-agent UI runtime config test to assert the shared
default constant instead of duplicating the numeric value.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts`
## Risks
- Medium risk: new agents can consume more local execution capacity by
default. The heartbeat scheduler still respects configured max
concurrency and budget/pause controls, and operators can lower or raise
the per-agent cap within the `1..50` clamp.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use and local command
execution. Exact context window was not exposed in the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through a control plane
that can start, supervise, and recover agent runs.
> - Local adapters are the bridge between Paperclip issues and concrete
agent runtimes such as Claude, Codex, and other ACP-compatible tools.
> - The roadmap calls out broader “bring your own agent” and claw-style
agent support, and ACPX gives Paperclip one path to normalize multiple
ACP agents behind a single adapter.
> - The branch needed to become one reviewable PR against current
`paperclipai/paperclip:master`, without carrying stale base conflicts or
generated lockfile churn.
> - This pull request adds an experimental built-in `acpx_local`
adapter, integrates it through the server/CLI/UI adapter surfaces, and
adds regression coverage for runtime execution, skill sync, stream
parsing, diagnostics, and log redaction.
> - The benefit is that Paperclip can run Claude/Codex/custom ACP agents
through ACPX while keeping operator configuration, skills, logging, and
transcript rendering inside the existing adapter model.
## What Changed
- Added `@paperclipai/adapter-acpx-local` with server execution, config
schema, ACPX session handling, CLI formatting, UI config helpers, and
stdout parsing.
- Registered `acpx_local` across CLI, server, shared constants, UI
adapter metadata, adapter capabilities, and agent creation/editing
surfaces.
- Added ACPX runtime execution support with persistent sessions,
local-agent JWT environment handling, skill snapshots, runtime skill
materialization, and isolation/security regressions.
- Added ACPX adapter diagnostics and marked the adapter experimental in
the UI.
- Added command/env secret redaction for resolved command metadata in
adapter-utils, server event storage, and the Agent Detail invocation UI.
- Added Storybook coverage for ACPX config, transcript rendering, and
skill states, plus PR screenshots under `docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2944/`.
- Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master`; `pnpm-lock.yaml`
is intentionally not included and there are no migration/schema changes.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/server/execute.test.ts
packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/server/test.test.ts
packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/cli/format-event.test.ts
packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/ui/parse-stdout.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/redaction.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/acpx-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/acpx-local-skill-sync.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/acpx-local-adapter-environment.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/adapter-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts
ui/src/adapters/metadata.test.ts` — 12 files, 87 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-acpx-local typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- Confirmed PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`, database schema
files, or migrations.
Screenshots:
## Risks
- Medium risk: this introduces a new built-in adapter package and
touches runtime execution, adapter registration, agent config, skills,
and transcript rendering.
- ACPX and ACP agent behavior can vary by installed tool versions; the
adapter is marked experimental to set operator expectations.
- `pnpm-lock.yaml` is excluded per repository PR policy, so dependency
lock refresh must be handled by the repo’s automation or maintainers.
- No database migration risk: no schema or migration files changed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use,
shell execution, git operations, and local verification. Exact hosted
context window was not exposed 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where
adapters are the boundary between the board, agents, and execution
runtimes.
> - Local adapters currently expose a primary runtime configuration, but
operators often need a cheaper model lane for routine or low-risk work.
> - That cheap lane has to stay adapter-owned: runtime profile settings
should not mutate the primary adapter config or bypass existing
auth/secret mediation.
> - Issue creation also needs an ergonomic way to request primary,
cheap, or custom model behavior for a selected assignee.
> - This pull request adds a first-class `cheap` model profile contract
across adapter capabilities, heartbeat config resolution, agent
configuration, and issue creation.
> - The benefit is cheaper task execution can be configured and
requested explicitly while preserving adapter boundaries, secret
handling, and audit visibility.
## What Changed
- Added adapter model-profile capability metadata and a `cheap` profile
contract for supported local adapters.
- Applied `runtimeConfig.modelProfiles.cheap.adapterConfig` during
heartbeat config resolution, including requested/applied/fallback run
metadata.
- Added agent configuration UI for cheap model profile settings without
writing those settings into primary `adapterConfig`.
- Added New Issue assignee model lane controls for Primary / Cheap /
Custom and request payload handling.
- Added run ledger profile badges and Storybook stories for the new
cheap-lane UI states.
- Added tests for validators, heartbeat model profile application,
permission/secret mediation, UI payload helpers, and run ledger
rendering.
- Added committed UI verification screenshots under
`docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/`.
- Addressed Greptile review feedback around cheap-profile defaults,
shared profile types, and fallback test data.
## Verification
Local:
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/adapter-registry.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/agent-config-patch.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-assignee-overrides.test.ts
ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts` — passed, 8 files / 103
tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` — passed after
Greptile/rebase follow-up, 2 files / 17 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed after
Greptile/rebase follow-up.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run` — did not complete successfully in this local
worktree: it stopped in pre-existing `@paperclipai/adapter-utils`
sandbox/SSH fixture suites outside this PR diff. Failures were 5s local
timeouts plus `git init -b` unsupported by this machine's Git 2.21.0.
The branch-specific targeted suites above passed.
- Branch was fetched/rebased onto `public-gh/master`; `git rev-list
--left-right --count public-gh/master...HEAD` reports `0 9`.
Remote PR checks on latest head
`e30bf399146451c86cee98ed528d51d33fa5af5a`:
- `policy` — passed.
- `verify` — passed.
- `e2e` — passed.
- `Greptile Review` — passed, confidence score 5/5; Greptile review
threads resolved.
- `security/snyk (cryppadotta)` — passed.
Screenshots:
- [New issue cheap lane
desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-cheap-desktop.png)
- [New issue custom lane
desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-custom-desktop.png)
- [New issue unsupported adapter
desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-unsupported-desktop.png)
- [Run ledger model profile badges
desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/runledger-profile-badges-desktop.png)
- Mobile variants are also in `docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/`.
## Risks
- Medium: heartbeat config mediation now merges runtime model profiles
into adapter configs, so adapter secret normalization and host-command
restrictions must keep covering nested config paths.
- Medium: the UI adds another issue creation choice; unsupported
adapters must keep hiding the cheap lane and preserve primary behavior.
- Low migration risk: no database migration is included.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex coding agent using GPT-5-class reasoning with repo tool use
and command execution. Exact served model/context window was not exposed
by the runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip coordinates work through issue-thread interactions, run
history, and cost telemetry.
> - Operators need workflow prompts to be cancellable and costs to be
visible at the issue level.
> - The earlier rollup mixed this workflow/cost work with database
backups, reliability recovery, thread scaling, and settings polish.
> - This pull request isolates the interaction and cost surfaces into a
reviewable slice.
> - The backend now supports cancelling pending question interactions
and summarizing issue-tree costs.
> - The UI component layer can render cancelled questions and interleave
activity with run ledger rows.
## What Changed
- Added `cancelled` as an issue-thread interaction status and result
shape for question interactions.
- Added the board-only `POST
/issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/cancel` route and service
implementation.
- Added issue-tree cost summary support in the cost service and
`/issues/:id/cost-summary` API route.
- Extended shared cost exports and UI API/query keys for issue cost
summaries.
- Updated `IssueThreadInteractionCard` and `IssueRunLedger` components
for cancelled questions, issue cost surfaces, and activity/run
interleaving.
- Added focused server and component regression coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx`
- Result: 4 test files passed, 45 tests passed.
- UI screenshots not included because this PR updates reusable
components and API surfaces without wiring a new page-level layout.
## Risks
- Adds a new interaction terminal status; clients that switch
exhaustively on interaction status may need to handle `cancelled`.
- Issue-tree cost summaries use recursive issue traversal and should be
watched on unusually large issue trees.
- Page-level issue detail wiring is intentionally left to the board
QoL/issue-detail branch to keep this PR narrow.
> 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-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium
reasoning effort.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so
backend task ownership, recovery, review visibility, and company-scoped
limits need to stay enforceable without UI-only coupling.
> - Closed PR #4692 bundled those backend changes with UI workflow,
docs, skills, workflow, and lockfile churn.
> - PAP-2694 asks for a clean backend/control-plane slice from that
closed branch.
> - This branch starts from current `master` and mines only the `cli`,
`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, and `server` contracts/tests needed
for the backend behavior.
> - It explicitly excludes UI workflow/performance work,
`.github/workflows/pr.yml`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, docs, skills,
package-script, adapter UI build-config, and perf fixture script
changes; the only UI files are fixture/test updates required by the
tightened shared `Company` contract.
> - The benefit is a smaller reviewable PR that preserves the
control-plane fixes while staying under Greptile s 100-file review
limit.
## What Changed
- Added company-scoped attachment-size limits through DB
schema/migrations, shared company portability contracts, CLI
import/export coverage, and server attachment upload enforcement.
- Added productivity review service/API behavior for no-comment streak,
long-active, and high-churn review issues, including request-depth
clamping and issue summary exposure.
- Hardened issue ownership and recovery/control-plane paths: peer-agent
mutation denial, issue tree pause/resume behavior, stranded recovery
origins, and related activity/test coverage.
- Preserved related backend contract updates for routine timestamp
variables and managed agent instruction bundles because they live in
shared/server contracts from the source branch.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by making `Company.attachmentMaxBytes`
non-optional, simplifying review request-depth clamping, fixing the
migration final newline, and enforcing the process-level attachment cap
as the final ceiling for uploads.
- Added minimal company fixtures needed for repo-wide typecheck/build
and kept the PR to 66 changed files with forbidden/non-slice paths
excluded.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD`
- `git diff --name-only origin/master..HEAD | wc -l` -> 66 files
- `git diff --name-only origin/master..HEAD -- .github/workflows/pr.yml
pnpm-lock.yaml package.json doc skills .agents scripts
packages/adapters` -> no output
- `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
packages/shared/src/routine-variables.test.ts
packages/shared/src/adapter-types.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` -> 12 files, 147 tests
passed
- `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company-delete.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts` -> 3 files, 18
tests passed
- `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts` -> 1 file, 6 tests
passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/ui build`
## Risks
- Includes migrations `0073_shiny_salo.sql` and
`0074_striped_genesis.sql`; merge ordering matters if another PR adds
migrations first.
- This is intentionally backend-only apart from fixture/test updates
forced by shared type correctness; UI affordances from PR #4692 are not
present here and should land in separate UI slices.
- The worktree install emitted plugin SDK bin-link warnings for unbuilt
plugin packages, but the targeted tests and package typechecks completed
successfully.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected; check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled terminal/GitHub
workflow. Exact runtime context window was not exposed by the harness.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies, so agent
metadata is part of the platform's governance and audit surface.
> - The shared agent taxonomy in `@paperclipai/shared` is the source of
truth for allowed agent roles and their UI labels.
> - The current taxonomy lacks a `security` role, which causes Security
Engineer hires to collapse into `engineer`.
> - That breaks separation-of-duties evidence in telemetry and weakens
role-level audit fidelity even though it does not directly change
permissions.
> - This pull request adds `security` as a first-class shared role and
covers the prior rejection path with a regression test.
> - The benefit is that Security Engineer agents can now be persisted
and rendered under the correct role without schema or permission churn.
## What Changed
- Added `security` to `AGENT_ROLES` in
`packages/shared/src/constants.ts`.
- Added the `Security` display label to `AGENT_ROLE_LABELS` so existing
UI consumers render the new role automatically.
- Added a shared validator regression test proving `createAgentSchema`
accepts `role: "security"` and that the label stays stable.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run
src/adapter-types.test.ts`
## Risks
- Low risk. This is a shared enum expansion with no database migration
and no permission-model change.
- Residual risk: this PR does not backfill existing agents already
persisted as `engineer`; it only fixes new validations and labels going
forward.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`/`doc` for overlap and did not find an existing
planned item covering this taxonomy fix.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5.4 via the Codex local adapter, with tool use and local
code execution enabled. The runtime did not surface a separate
context-window identifier in agent metadata.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The environment/runtime layer decides where agent work executes and
how the control plane reaches those runtimes.
> - Today Paperclip can run locally and over SSH, but sandboxed
execution needs a first-class environment model instead of one-off
adapter behavior.
> - We also want sandbox providers to be pluggable so the core does not
hardcode every provider implementation.
> - This branch adds the Sandbox environment path, the provider
contract, and a deterministic fake provider plugin.
> - That required synchronized changes across shared contracts, plugin
SDK surfaces, server runtime orchestration, and the UI
environment/workspace flows.
> - The result is that sandbox execution becomes a core control-plane
capability while keeping provider implementations extensible and
testable.
## What Changed
- Added sandbox runtime support to the environment execution path,
including runtime URL discovery, sandbox execution targeting,
orchestration, and heartbeat integration.
- Added plugin-provider support for sandbox environments so providers
can be supplied via plugins instead of hardcoded server logic.
- Added the fake sandbox provider plugin with deterministic behavior
suitable for local and automated testing.
- Updated shared types, validators, plugin protocol definitions, and SDK
helpers to carry sandbox provider and workspace-runtime contracts across
package boundaries.
- Updated server routes and services so companies can create sandbox
environments, select them for work, and execute work through the sandbox
runtime path.
- Updated the UI environment and workspace surfaces to expose sandbox
environment configuration and selection.
- Added test coverage for sandbox runtime behavior, provider seams,
environment route guards, orchestration, and the fake provider plugin.
## Verification
- Ran locally before the final fixture-only scrub:
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
- Ran locally after the final scrub amend:
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/runtime-api.test.ts`
- Reviewer spot checks:
- create a sandbox environment backed by the fake provider plugin
- run work through that environment
- confirm sandbox provider execution does not inherit host secrets
implicitly
## Risks
- This touches shared contracts, plugin SDK plumbing, server runtime
orchestration, and UI environment/workspace flows, so regressions would
likely show up as cross-layer mismatches rather than isolated type
errors.
- Runtime URL discovery and sandbox callback selection are sensitive to
host/bind configuration; if that logic is wrong, sandbox-backed
callbacks may fail even when execution succeeds.
- The fake provider plugin is intentionally deterministic and
test-oriented; future providers may expose capability gaps that this
branch does not yet cover.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent on a GPT-5-class backend in the
Paperclip/Codex harness. Exact backend model ID is not exposed
in-session. Tool-assisted workflow with shell execution, file editing,
git history inspection, and local 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The environments subsystem already models execution environments,
but before this branch there was no end-to-end SSH-backed runtime path
for agents to actually run work against a remote box
> - That meant agents could be configured around environment concepts
without a reliable way to execute adapter sessions remotely, sync
workspace state, and preserve run context across supported adapters
> - We also need environment selection to participate in normal
Paperclip control-plane behavior: agent defaults, project/issue
selection, route validation, and environment probing
> - Because this capability is still experimental, the UI surface should
be easy to hide and easy to remove later without undoing the underlying
implementation
> - This pull request adds SSH environment execution support across the
runtime, adapters, routes, schema, and tests, then puts the visible
environment-management UI behind an experimental flag
> - The benefit is that we can validate real SSH-backed agent execution
now while keeping the user-facing controls safely gated until the
feature is ready to come out of experimentation
## What Changed
- Added SSH-backed execution target support in the shared adapter
runtime, including remote workspace preparation, skill/runtime asset
sync, remote session handling, and workspace restore behavior after
runs.
- Added SSH execution coverage for supported local adapters, plus remote
execution tests across Claude, Codex, Cursor, Gemini, OpenCode, and Pi.
- Added environment selection and environment-management backend support
needed for SSH execution, including route/service work, validation,
probing, and agent default environment persistence.
- Added CLI support for SSH environment lab verification and updated
related docs/tests.
- Added the `enableEnvironments` experimental flag and gated the
environment UI behind it on company settings, agent configuration, and
project configuration surfaces.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/cursor-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/gemini-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/opencode-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts
packages/adapters/pi-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/new-agent-hire-payload.test.ts
ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Manual verification on a branch-local dev server:
- enabled the experimental flag
- created an SSH environment
- created a Linux Claude agent using that environment
- confirmed a run executed on the Linux box and synced workspace changes
back
## Risks
- Medium: this touches runtime execution flow across multiple adapters,
so regressions would likely show up in remote session setup, workspace
sync, or environment selection precedence.
- The UI flag reduces exposure, but the underlying runtime and route
changes are still substantial and rely on migration correctness.
- The change set is broad across adapters, control-plane services,
migrations, and UI gating, so review should pay close attention to
environment-selection precedence and remote workspace lifecycle
behavior.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via Paperclip's local Codex adapter, GPT-5-class coding
model with tool use and code execution in the local repo workspace. The
local adapter does not surface a more specific public model version
string in this branch workflow.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can
pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping
descendant execution and wake behavior coherent.
> - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts,
server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions
are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc.
> - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new
environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments`
migration.
> - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto
`paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing
subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind.
> - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature
cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to
`0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single
PR.
> - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the
subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration
conflicts.
## What Changed
- Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared
API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree
pause, cancel, and restore operations.
- Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold
creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue
detail subtree controls.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to
`0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream
`0065_environments`.
- Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200
OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201
Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`
- `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
## Risks
- This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared
contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely
around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases.
- The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream
`0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final
`0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that
lands.
- The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of
relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore
operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could
have assumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class
tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not
exposed inside this session).
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Every heartbeat run needs a concrete place where the agent's adapter
process executes.
> - Today that execution location is implicitly the local machine, which
makes it hard to track, audit, and manage as a first-class runtime
concern.
> - The first step is to represent the current local execution path
explicitly without changing how users experience agent runs.
> - This pull request adds core Environment and Environment Lease
records, then routes existing local heartbeat execution through a
default `Local` environment.
> - The benefit is that local runs remain behavior-preserving while the
system now has durable environment identity, lease lifecycle tracking,
and activity records for execution placement.
## What Changed
- Added `environments` and `environment_leases` database tables, schema
exports, and migration `0065_environments.sql`.
- Added shared environment constants, TypeScript types, and validators
for environment drivers, statuses, lease policies, lease statuses, and
cleanup states.
- Added `environmentService` for listing, reading, creating, updating,
and ensuring company-scoped environments.
- Added environment lease lifecycle operations for acquire, metadata
update, single-lease release, and run-wide release.
- Updated heartbeat execution to lazily ensure a company-scoped default
`Local` environment before adapter execution.
- Updated heartbeat execution to acquire an ephemeral local environment
lease, write `paperclipEnvironment` into the run context snapshot, and
release active leases during run finalization.
- Added activity log events for environment lease acquisition and
release.
- Added tests for environment service behavior and the local heartbeat
environment lifecycle.
- Added a CI-follow-up heartbeat guard so deferred issue comment wakes
are promoted before automatic missing-comment retries, with focused
batching test coverage.
## Verification
Local verification run for this branch:
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-local-environment.test.ts --pool=forks`
Additional reviewer/CI verification:
- Confirm `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not modified.
- Confirm `pnpm test:run` passes in CI.
- Confirm `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true pnpm run test:e2e` passes in CI.
- Confirm a local heartbeat run creates one active `Local` environment
when needed, records one lease for the run, releases the lease when the
run finishes, and includes `paperclipEnvironment` in the run context
snapshot.
Screenshots: not applicable; this PR has no UI changes.
## Risks
- Migration risk: introduces two new tables and a new migration journal
entry. Review should verify company scoping, indexes, foreign keys, and
enum defaults are correct.
- Lifecycle risk: heartbeat finalization now releases environment leases
in addition to existing runtime cleanup. A finalization bug could leave
stale active leases or mark a failed run's lease incorrectly.
- Behavior-preservation risk: local adapter execution should remain
unchanged apart from environment bookkeeping. Review should pay
attention to the heartbeat path around context snapshot updates and
final cleanup ordering.
- Activity volume risk: each heartbeat run now logs lease acquisition
and release events, increasing activity log volume by two records per
run.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5.4 via Codex CLI. Capabilities used: repository inspection,
TypeScript implementation review, local test/build execution, and
PR-description drafting.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A: no UI changes)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A:
no user-facing docs or commands changed)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals,
and the board UI.
> - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not
hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals.
> - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native
surface for proposed tasks and questions.
> - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations,
richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers.
> - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become
explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue
workflow.
## What Changed
- Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks,
structured questions, and request confirmations.
- Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question
answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows.
- Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from
agents/plugins.
- Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill
docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for
issue-scoped decisions.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch
migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD
COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79
tests passed
- `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration
numbering check
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across
db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces.
- Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master
migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add
idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering.
- UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR
does not include browser screenshots.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and
context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local
shell/code execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through issue checkout, heartbeat
runs, routines, and auditable control-plane state
> - The runtime path has to recover from lost local processes, transient
adapter failures, blocked dependencies, and routine coalescing without
stranding work
> - The existing branch carried several reliability fixes across
heartbeat scheduling, issue runtime controls, routine dispatch, and
operator-facing run state
> - These changes belong together because they share backend contracts,
migrations, and runtime status semantics
> - This pull request groups the control-plane/runtime slice so it can
merge independently from board UI polish and adapter sandbox work
> - The benefit is safer heartbeat recovery, clearer runtime controls,
and more predictable recurring execution behavior
## What Changed
- Adds bounded heartbeat retry scheduling, scheduled retry state, and
Codex transient failure recovery handling.
- Tightens heartbeat process recovery, blocker wake behavior, issue
comment wake handling, routine dispatch coalescing, and
activity/dashboard bounds.
- Adds runtime-control MCP tools and Paperclip skill docs for issue
workspace runtime management.
- Adds migrations `0061_lively_thor_girl.sql` and
`0062_routine_run_dispatch_fingerprint.sql`.
- Surfaces retry state in run ledger/agent UI and keeps related shared
types synchronized.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run src/tools.test.ts` from `packages/mcp-server`
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches heartbeat recovery and routine dispatch,
which are central execution paths.
- Migration order matters if split branches land out of order: merge
this PR before branches that assume the new runtime/routine fields.
- Runtime retry behavior should be watched in CI and in local operator
smoke tests because it changes how transient failures are resumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent runtime, shell/git tool use
enabled. Exact hosted model build and context window are not exposed in
this Paperclip heartbeat 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators and agents coordinate through company-scoped issues,
comments, documents, and task relationships.
> - Issue text can mention other tickets, but those references were
previously plain markdown/text without durable relationship data.
> - That made it harder to understand related work, surface backlinks,
and keep cross-ticket context visible in the board.
> - This pull request adds first-class issue reference extraction,
storage, API responses, and UI surfaces.
> - The benefit is that issue references become queryable, navigable,
and visible without relying on ad hoc text scanning.
## What Changed
- Added shared issue-reference parsing utilities and exported
reference-related types/constants.
- Added an `issue_reference_mentions` table, idempotent migration DDL,
schema exports, and database documentation.
- Added server-side issue reference services, route integration,
activity summaries, and a backfill command for existing issue content.
- Added UI reference pills, related-work panels, markdown/editor mention
handling, and issue detail/property rendering updates.
- Added focused shared, server, and UI tests for parsing, persistence,
display, and related-work behavior.
- Rebased `PAP-735-first-class-task-references` cleanly onto
`public-gh/master`; no `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes are included.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run packages/shared/src/issue-references.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-references-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRelatedWorkPanel.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx`
## Risks
- Medium risk because this adds a new issue-reference persistence path
that touches shared parsing, database schema, server routes, and UI
rendering.
- Migration risk is mitigated by `CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS`, guarded
foreign-key creation, and `CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS` statements so
users who have applied an older local version of the numbered migration
can re-run safely.
- UI risk is limited by focused component coverage, but reviewers should
still manually inspect issue detail pages containing ticket references
before merge.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool-using shell workflow with
repository inspection, git rebase/push, typecheck, and focused Vitest
verification.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: dotta <dotta@example.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The REST API is the control-plane boundary for companies, agents,
plugins, adapters, costs, invites, and issue mutations.
> - Several routes still relied on broad board or company access checks
without consistently enforcing the narrower actor, company, and
active-checkout boundaries those operations require.
> - That can allow agents or non-admin users to mutate sensitive
resources outside the intended governance path.
> - This pull request hardens the route authorization layer and adds
regression coverage for the audited API surfaces.
> - The benefit is tighter multi-company isolation, safer plugin and
adapter administration, and stronger enforcement of active issue
ownership.
## What Changed
- Added route-level authorization checks for budgets, plugin
administration/scoped routes, adapter management, company import/export,
direct agent creation, invite test resolution, and issue mutation/write
surfaces.
- Enforced active checkout ownership for agent-authenticated issue
mutations, while preserving explicit management overrides for permitted
managers.
- Restricted sensitive adapter and plugin management operations to
instance-admin or properly scoped actors.
- Tightened company portability and invite probing routes so agents
cannot cross company boundaries.
- Updated access constants and the Company Access UI copy for the new
active-checkout management grant.
- Added focused regression tests covering cross-company denial, agent
self-mutation denial, admin-only operations, and active checkout
ownership.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and fixed validation
fallout from the rebase: heartbeat-context route ordering and a company
import/export e2e fixture that now opts out of direct-hire approval
before using direct agent creation.
- Updated onboarding and signoff e2e setup to create seed agents through
`/agent-hires` plus board approval, so they remain compatible with the
approval-gated new-agent default.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by removing a duplicate company export API
alias, avoiding N+1 reporting-chain lookups in active-checkout override
checks, allowing agent mutations on unassigned `in_progress` issues, and
blocking NAT64 invite-probe targets.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/adapter-routes-authz.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/invite-test-resolution-route.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-adapter-validation-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/invite-test-resolution-route.test.ts`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter ui typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm test:e2e -- tests/e2e/onboarding.spec.ts
tests/e2e/signoff-policy.spec.ts`
- `pnpm test:e2e -- tests/e2e/signoff-policy.spec.ts`
- `pnpm test:run` was also run. It failed under default full-suite
parallelism with two order-dependent failures in
`plugin-routes-authz.test.ts` and `routines-e2e.test.ts`; both files
passed when rerun directly together with `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/routines-e2e.test.ts`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this changes authorization behavior across multiple
sensitive API surfaces, so callers that depended on broad board/company
access may now receive `403` or `409` until they use the correct
governance path.
- Direct agent creation now respects the company-level board-approval
requirement; integrations that need pending hires should use
`/api/companies/:companyId/agent-hires`.
- Active in-progress issue mutations now require checkout ownership or
an explicit management override, which may reveal workflow assumptions
in older automation.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-using workflow with local shell,
Git, GitHub CLI, and repository tests.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents inside execution and project
workspaces
> - Workspace runtime services can be controlled manually by operators
and reused by agent runs
> - Manual start/stop state was not preserved consistently across
workspace policies and routine launches
> - Routine launches also needed branch/workspace variables to default
from the selected workspace context
> - This pull request makes runtime policy state explicit, preserves
manual control, and auto-fills routine branch variables from workspace
data
> - The benefit is less surprising workspace service behavior and fewer
manual inputs when running workspace-scoped routines
## What Changed
- Added runtime-state handling for manual workspace control across
execution and project workspace validators, routes, and services.
- Updated heartbeat/runtime startup behavior so manually stopped
services are respected.
- Auto-filled routine workspace branch variables from available
workspace context.
- Added focused server and UI tests for workspace runtime and routine
variable behavior.
- Removed muted gray background styling from workspace pages and cards
for a cleaner workspace UI.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
ui/src/components/RoutineRunVariablesDialog.test.tsx`
- Result: 55 tests passed, 21 skipped. The embedded Postgres routines
tests skipped on this host with the existing PGlite/Postgres init
warning; workspace-runtime and UI tests passed.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this touches runtime service start/stop policy and
heartbeat launch behavior.
- The focused tests cover manual runtime state, routine variables, and
workspace runtime reuse paths.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, tool-enabled local shell and
GitHub workflow, exact runtime context window not exposed in this
session.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots, or documented why targeted component/service verification
is sufficient here
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The plugin system is the extension path for optional capabilities
that should not require core product changes for every integration.
> - Plugins need scoped host APIs for issue orchestration, documents,
wakeups, summaries, activity attribution, and isolated database state.
> - Without those host APIs, richer plugins either cannot coordinate
Paperclip work safely or need privileged core-side special cases.
> - This pull request adds the plugin orchestration host surface, scoped
route dispatch, a database namespace layer, and a smoke plugin that
exercises the contract.
> - The benefit is a broader plugin API that remains company-scoped,
auditable, and covered by tests.
## What Changed
- Added plugin orchestration host APIs for issue creation, document
access, wakeups, summaries, plugin-origin activity, and scoped API route
dispatch.
- Added plugin database namespace tables, schema exports, migration
checks, and idempotent replay coverage under migration
`0059_plugin_database_namespaces`.
- Added shared plugin route/API types and validators used by server and
SDK boundaries.
- Expanded plugin SDK types, protocol helpers, worker RPC host behavior,
and testing utilities for orchestration flows.
- Added the `plugin-orchestration-smoke-example` package to exercise
scoped routes, restricted database namespaces, issue orchestration,
documents, wakeups, summaries, and UI status surfaces.
- Kept the new orchestration smoke fixture out of the root pnpm
workspace importer so this PR preserves the repository policy of not
committing `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
- Updated plugin docs and database docs for the new orchestration and
database namespace surfaces.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master`, resolved conflicts, and
removed `pnpm-lock.yaml` from the final PR diff.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/client.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-scoped-api-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-sdk-orchestration-contract.test.ts`
- From `packages/plugins/examples/plugin-orchestration-smoke-example`:
`pnpm exec vitest run --config ./vitest.config.ts`
- `pnpm --dir
packages/plugins/examples/plugin-orchestration-smoke-example run
typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- PR CI on latest head `293fc67c`: `policy`, `verify`, `e2e`, and
`security/snyk` all passed.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this expands plugin host authority, so route auth,
company scoping, and plugin-origin activity attribution need careful
review.
- Medium risk: database namespace migration behavior must remain
idempotent for environments that may have seen earlier branch versions.
- Medium risk: the orchestration smoke fixture is intentionally excluded
from the root workspace importer to avoid a `pnpm-lock.yaml` PR diff;
direct fixture verification remains listed above.
- Low operational risk from the PR setup itself: the branch is rebased
onto current `master`, the migration is ordered after upstream
`0057`/`0058`, and `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not in the final diff.
> 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`.
Roadmap checked: this work aligns with the completed Plugin system
milestone and extends the plugin surface rather than duplicating an
unrelated planned core feature.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in a tool-enabled CLI
environment. Exact hosted model build and context-window size are not
exposed by the runtime; reasoning/tool use were enabled for repository
inspection, editing, testing, git operations, and PR creation.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A: no core UI screen change; example plugin UI contract
is covered by tests)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The heartbeat runtime, agent import path, and agent configuration
defaults determine whether work is dispatched safely and predictably.
> - Several accumulated fixes all touched agent execution recovery, wake
routing, import behavior, and runtime concurrency defaults.
> - Those changes need to land together so the heartbeat service and
agent creation defaults stay internally consistent.
> - This pull request groups the runtime/governance changes from the
split branch into one standalone branch.
> - The benefit is safer recovery for stranded runs, bounded high-volume
reads, imported-agent approval correctness, skill-template support, and
a clearer default concurrency policy.
## What Changed
- Fixed stranded continuation recovery so successful automatic retries
are requeued instead of incorrectly blocking the issue.
- Bounded high-volume issue/log reads across issue, heartbeat, agent,
project, and workspace paths.
- Fixed imported-agent approval and instruction-path permission
handling.
- Quarantined seeded worktree execution state during worktree
provisioning.
- Queued approval follow-up wakes and hardened SQL_ASCII heartbeat
output handling.
- Added reusable agent instruction templates for hiring flows.
- Set the default max concurrent agent runs to five and updated related
UI/tests/docs.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-list.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts`
- Split integration check: merged this branch first, followed by the
other [PAP-1614](/PAP/issues/PAP-1614) branches, with no merge
conflicts.
- Confirmed this branch does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: touches heartbeat recovery, queueing, and issue list
bounds in central runtime paths.
- Imported-agent and concurrency default behavior changes may affect
existing automation that assumes one-at-a-time default runs.
- No database migrations are included.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.4 tool-enabled coding model, agentic
code-editing/runtime with local shell and GitHub CLI access; exact
context window and reasoning mode are not exposed by the Paperclip
harness.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is moving from a solo local operator model toward teams
supervising AI-agent companies.
> - Human access management and human-visible profile surfaces are part
of that multiple-user path.
> - The branch included related access cleanup, archived-member removal,
permission protection, and a user profile page.
> - These changes share company membership, user attribution, and
access-service behavior.
> - This pull request groups those human access/profile changes into one
standalone branch.
> - The benefit is safer member removal behavior and a first profile
surface for user work, activity, and cost attribution.
## What Changed
- Added archived company member removal support across shared contracts,
server routes/services, and UI.
- Protected company member removal with stricter permission checks and
tests.
- Added company user profile API, shared types, route wiring, client
API, route, and UI page.
- Simplified the user profile page visual design to a neutral
typography-led layout.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/user-profile-routes.test.ts
ui/src/pages/CompanyAccess.test.tsx --hookTimeout=30000`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/user-profile-routes.test.ts
--testTimeout=30000 --hookTimeout=30000` after an initial local
embedded-Postgres hook timeout in the combined run.
- Split integration check: merged after runtime/governance and
dev-infra/backups with no merge conflicts.
- Confirmed this branch does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: changes member removal permissions and adds a new user
profile route with cross-table stats.
- The profile page is a new UI surface and may need visual follow-up in
browser QA.
- No database migrations are included.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.4 tool-enabled coding model, agentic
code-editing/runtime with local shell and GitHub CLI access; exact
context window and reasoning mode are not exposed by the Paperclip
harness.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Devin Foley
Dotta
scotttong
