## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to supervise
AI-agent companies.
> - Operators need task execution state to be visible where they read,
reply to, and manage an issue.
> - Scheduled monitor state was easy to miss because it lived in a
description-area card and used inconsistent, mostly static time copy.
> - The task page, composer, retry card, and properties panel therefore
needed one shared monitor-state and countdown language.
> - This pull request adds shared live-ticking time utilities, moves
monitor status into a top-of-page banner and composer strip, and
redesigns the properties row with complete read-only details.
> - The benefit is that operators can immediately understand when an
agent resumes, why it is waiting, and how to act without hunting across
the page.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Issue monitors can schedule a future agent check, retry, or wake, but
the UI did not present that state consistently or prominently. The
existing description-area activity card competed with issue content, the
composer did not explain that replying wakes the agent early, compact
properties copy truncated important details, and relative times did not
share a live two-unit formatter.
This change makes scheduled monitor state visible and consistent across
the issue header, reply composer, properties panel, and scheduled-retry
card. Related prior server-side recovery visibility work: #9629
(distinct scope).
## What Changed
- Added shared two-unit monitor ETA/offset formatters and a live-ticking
countdown hook, including compact absolute-time rules for Today,
weekday, and cross-year dates.
- Replaced the description-area monitor activity card with a top-of-page
status banner and added an inline composer strip that explains replies
wake the agent before the scheduled check.
- Redesigned the properties Monitor row as readable two-line copy with
attempt state, due/overdue/cleared wording, click-to-edit behavior, and
a hover/tap details tooltip.
- Adopted the shared two-unit formatting in the scheduled-retry card and
added focused coverage for monitor formatting, state transitions,
visibility, and controls.
- Added the approved wireframe package and published reference:
https://pages.paperclip.ing/pap-14557-monitor-visibility/
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-monitor.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueMonitorBanner.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 3 files, 74 tests passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm build` — passed with existing Vite optimization/chunk-size
warnings.
- UX review approved the rendered real components across desktop/mobile,
light/dark, and the scheduled/retrying/due/overdue/cleared/none state
matrix.
- QA passed 6/6 criteria in Chromium, including a live countdown
transition without refresh. Review evidence included the P2 banner
state-matrix screenshot and the P3 properties-row and details-tooltip
screenshots, plus a dark-mode capture.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` currently reports five pre-existing `#9627`
comment literals on `origin/master`; this branch introduces none of
those literals or any new token violation.
## Risks
- Low-to-moderate UI behavior risk: monitor copy and placement change
across several issue surfaces, but all derive from one shared state
builder and focused tests cover the state matrix.
- Countdown rendering wakes once per minute while a visible monitor is
scheduled; the hook is limited to active monitor surfaces and stops when
hidden.
- No database, API contract, migration, telemetry, or authorization
behavior changes.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5.6-sol`; context-window metadata was unavailable
in this runtime; reasoning, repository tool use, command execution, and
test execution enabled. Earlier implementation commits were assisted by
Claude Fable 5 and Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context), as credited in their
commit trailers.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
f12bb27bcd