## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane operators use to coordinate AI-agent
companies and review work needing attention.
> - The Inbox is the operator-facing surface that aggregates tasks
requiring attention across server state and shared client polling.
> - Archiving a task optimistically removed it, but ordinary background
activity and stale polling responses could make it reappear seconds
later.
> - The server therefore needs to distinguish genuine user-attention
events from routine agent/system activity.
> - The client also needs a bounded local archive guard across every
Inbox query path while the server mutation and in-flight polls settle.
> - This pull request fixes both resurrection paths and adds
race-focused regression coverage.
> - The benefit is stable archive behavior without hiding a genuine
archive failure after reconciliation or reload.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### Pre-submission checklist
- [x] Searched existing open and closed issues and pull requests; no
duplicate implementation was found.
- [x] Reproduced on `master` before this branch.
- [x] Confirmed this is a Paperclip core bug, not adapter or provider
behavior.
### What happened?
Archiving an Inbox task hid it optimistically, then background refresh
activity could insert it back into the list seconds later.
### Expected behavior
A successfully archived task remains hidden during normal polling. A
genuine failed archive may become visible again after reconciliation or
reload.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Open Inbox with a visible task.
2. Archive the task.
3. Wait for shared polling or routine agent activity to refresh task
data.
4. Observe the archived task reappear without a hard page refresh.
### Paperclip version or commit
`master` before this branch.
### Deployment mode
Built from source using the local development application.
### Installation method
Built from source (`pnpm`).
### Agent adapter(s) involved
Not adapter-specific; this is a core Inbox bug.
### Database mode
Not database-mode-specific.
### Access context
Board (human operator).
### Additional context
The failure had independent server and client causes: routine activity
could resurface archived rows server-side, while stale shared-poll
responses could bypass optimistic client removal.
## What Changed
- Restrict server-side Inbox resurfacing to explicit user-attention
events rather than any issue activity write.
- Add a bounded client-side archive guard with confirmation, failure
restoration, and cache reconciliation behavior.
- Apply the guard to Inbox rendering, badge counts, optimistic cache
updates, and shared-poll result application.
- Classify the generic compact Inbox query so stale shared-poll data
cannot bypass the guard.
- Add server visibility-matrix tests and UI race-condition regression
tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/hooks/useSharedPolling.test.ts src/lib/inboxArchiveCache.test.ts
src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — 25 passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — 107 passed.
- Branch rebased cleanly onto current `origin/master` before push.
## Risks
- Low-to-moderate behavioral risk: resurfacing is intentionally
narrower, so the server tests cover human comments, mentions,
interactions, and status transitions that must still regain attention.
- The client guard is bounded and cleared on mutation failure, limiting
the risk of hiding a task whose archive did not persist.
- No schema, migration, public API, workflow, dependency-lock, or
visual-token changes.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude via Claude Code (`claude_local`; prior
implementation/review run, exact underlying model ID and context window
were not retained in the handoff metadata), with repository tool use and
test execution.
- OpenAI `gpt-5.5` via Codex CLI for final review repair and PR
preparation, with reasoning, repository editing, GitHub tooling, and
code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and
linked/described the result above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip task identifier
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation where needed; no
documentation change is required for this bug fix
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [x] All Paperclip-authored commits include the required co-author
trailer
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
59eee4829c