## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Operators rely on the issue detail thread to understand whether a
task is blocked, live, or waiting on another task.
> - A blocked issue can have a healthy blocker chain where downstream
work is actively running and the parent will resume automatically.
> - Showing that case with the same amber blocked notice as a stalled or
attention-needed blocker makes the state look more severe than it is.
> - The UI already receives blocker-attention state, blocker summaries,
and company live-run ids, so this can be clarified without a new API
shape.
> - This pull request adds a blue "Waiting on live work" notice for
covered blocker chains while preserving the existing amber notice for
the other blocked states.
> - The benefit is that operators can distinguish healthy queued work
from blocked work that needs intervention.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #3820
Refs #8271
Related PR: #3877
Supersedes #9295
## What Changed
- Added a blue `IssueBlockedNotice` variant when
`blockerAttention.state` is `covered` and the blocker chain has live
work.
- Rendered blocker-chain progress as done, running, and queued steps,
including a "Now running" row for live terminal blockers.
- Preserved the existing amber blocked notice for stalled,
attention-needed, ordinary blocked, and successful-run handoff states.
- Plumbed the existing `liveIssueIds`, `blockedBy`, and
`blockerAttention` data from issue detail into the chat-thread blocked
notice.
- Added regression coverage around the covered live-work state, the
no-confirmed-live fallback, numeric step ordering, and amber fallback
states.
- Hardened a low-trust server route test cleanup helper so CI deletes
heartbeat run events before deleting heartbeat runs.
## Verification
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx`
- GitHub PR workflow is green on head
`52ab6d9076ce233c183bf7133fa666e8597b6765`.
- Greptile check is green on head
`52ab6d9076ce233c183bf7133fa666e8597b6765` with zero unresolved review
threads.
## Risks
Low runtime risk: the product change is frontend-only and uses data
already returned to the issue detail page. The main risk is visual
regression in the blocked notice; the change keeps non-covered states on
the existing amber path and adds focused regression coverage. The
server-side change is test-only cleanup for an existing CI shard
failure.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex using GPT-5, tool-use enabled in a repository workspace.
The runtime did not expose a more specific model build id or
context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
1c75a46c10