## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Reviewers annotate plans and issue documents with inline comments,
and assigned agents act on that feedback
> - The server already builds a bounded review context from open plan
annotations and includes it in agent wake payloads
> - Non-plan issue documents did not get the same treatment: their open
annotation threads never reached the agent, and the properties pane did
not surface their annotations
> - This pull request extends the review-context path and the
properties-pane UI to issue documents, at parity with plans
> - The benefit is that agent feedback on any issue document reaches the
assigned agent, not only feedback on the plan
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The review-context pipeline that delivers inline annotation feedback to
assigned agents, and the properties pane that surfaces those annotations
to reviewers.
**Subsystem affected**
The server review-context path
(`server/src/services/plan-review-context.ts`, wake payload assembly in
`server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`, `server/src/routes/issues.ts`),
shared wake-payload types (`packages/shared`, `packages/adapter-utils`),
and the issue properties pane (`ui/src/components/issue-properties/`).
**Current behavior**
A reviewer can annotate any issue document, not only the plan. The agent
wake payload includes open annotation threads for the plan document
only. Feedback left on other issue documents is invisible to the
assigned agent. In the properties pane, the Artifacts tab also gives no
way to see or open a document's annotations.
**Proposed behavior**
Add `buildDocumentReviewContext` beside the existing plan builder. It
collects open annotation threads for all non-plan issue documents,
applies the same thread, comment, and character budgets across
documents, and reports truncation. Include the result as a new
`documentReviewContext` field in agent wake payloads and in the issue
wake-context route. Keep the plan context on its legacy builder and
field so plan-only wakes stay byte-for-byte compatible. Render the new
context in the adapter wake-payload text, and surface annotation counts
and the annotation panel for documents in the properties pane's Plans
and Artifacts tabs.
**Reason and benefit**
The floating annotation popover and persistent highlight UI landed
earlier; this change completes the loop so agent feedback on any issue
document reaches the assigned agent, not only feedback on the plan.
**Breaking changes**
None. The wake payload gains a new optional `documentReviewContext`
field; the existing plan context field and its legacy builder are
unchanged, so plan-only wakes stay byte-for-byte compatible.
## What Changed
- Add `buildDocumentReviewContext` in
`server/src/services/plan-review-context.ts`: bounded review context
(shared thread/comment/character budgets, per-document legacy limits)
over all non-plan issue documents
- Include `documentReviewContext` in agent wake payloads
(`server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`) and in the issue wake-context
response (`server/src/routes/issues.ts`)
- Add shared `DocumentReviewContext` / `DocumentReviewContextDocument`
types in `packages/shared`
- Normalize and render the new context in adapter wake-payload text
(`packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts`), with tests
- Show a `DocumentAnnotationsCountChip` and the annotation panel for
documents in the properties pane Plans and Artifacts tabs, with tests
- Extend server document-annotations service tests to cover the new
context builder
## Verification
- Run `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/document-annotations-service.test.ts` from the repo
root — 104 tests pass
- Run `TZ=UTC npx vitest run
ui/src/components/issue-properties/IssuePropertiesDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx
ui/src/components/DocumentAnnotationPopover.test.tsx` from the repo root
— 75 tests pass (one pre-existing monitor-row case asserts UTC
timestamps, so use `TZ=UTC` locally; CI runs in UTC)
- `pnpm run typecheck` in `server/` passes
- Manual: annotate a non-plan issue document, then wake the assigned
agent with a comment — the wake payload lists the open document
annotation threads; the Artifacts tab shows the annotation count chip
and opens the panel
## Risks
- The wake payload gains a new optional `documentReviewContext` field;
consumers that ignore unknown fields are unaffected, and the plan
context field is unchanged
- The context is new input to agent wakes; shared budgets (same limits
as the plan context) bound token cost across all documents
- Low UI risk: the properties-pane changes reuse the existing annotation
components
> 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
- Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5), with
extended thinking and agentic tool use (Claude Code 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 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>
eabecc6f77