## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The recovery service restores execution when a task loses its live
path.
> - The service retries the original agent for a limited number of
attempts.
> - The old fallback could select a manager or an executive and wake
that agent.
> - That fallback changed the effective recovery owner without a board
decision.
> - This pull request keeps the source owner and gives the exhausted
recovery decision to the board.
> - The benefit is a clear ownership rule with no automatic task
takeover.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: #11807
Refs: #11817
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves stranded-task recovery in the server and the recovery
action card in the board UI.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: server recovery orchestration, recovery observability,
board UI, and execution documentation.
**Current behavior**
Paperclip retries the original agent for a limited number of attempts.
After the retry limit, it can select a manager, task creator, CTO, or
CEO as a recovery owner. It can then wake that substitute agent. The
source task keeps its assignee, but the automatic substitute wake
creates an implicit takeover path.
**Proposed behavior**
Paperclip keeps the limited retry path for the original agent. If
recovery is exhausted or unsafe, Paperclip creates one board-owned
source recovery action. It keeps both source assignee fields. It does
not wake a substitute agent. The board can repair, retry the original
owner, explicitly reassign, or resolve the task.
**Reason and benefit**
Source task ownership must remain stable until a person or an approved
policy changes it. The new rule removes implicit manager and executive
takeover. It also gives operators clear evidence through the
`board_escalation_no_takeover_v1` routing marker.
**Breaking changes**
Automatic recovery no longer wakes a manager or executive after the
original-agent retry limit. Existing active agent-owned recovery actions
remain visible and can resolve. Paperclip does not schedule a new
takeover wake for those legacy actions.
## What Changed
- Route exhausted and unsafe stranded recovery to a board-owned source
action.
- Preserve agent and user assignee fields during automatic escalation.
- Keep limited same-agent continuity repair and provider quota
monitoring.
- Stop new manager, creator, CTO, and CEO recovery wakes.
- Keep legacy agent-owned recovery actions readable and resolvable.
- Add the routing marker to new board escalation evidence and
observability.
- Update recovery notices, the board UI card, tests, and execution
documentation.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm -r typecheck`.
- Run `pnpm build`.
- Run `pnpm check:token-gates`.
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts`.
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts`.
- Run the focused recovery and UI Vitest files changed by this pull
request.
- Confirm that a paused or over-budget source owner creates one board
action, keeps the source assignee, and creates no substitute wake.
## Risks
- Operators must now make the final recovery decision after the
original-agent limit.
- Legacy agent-owned actions use their stored contract. This avoids a
rollout-time ownership rewrite.
- No database migration or API response shape changes are included.
- The tests cover concurrent escalation, paused and over-budget owners,
legacy actions, provider quota monitoring, and UI presentation.
> 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 with GPT-5. The hosted exact model revision and context
window are not exposed. Reasoning, tool use, and 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 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>
f572e08678