## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agents move issues to `in_review` and rely on a "review path" (an
interaction, an approval, a monitor, or a named reviewer) to tell them
who decides next.
> - That review path can silently disappear. A user comment supersedes
the pending interaction, a monitor is exhausted, or a run ends without
restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with nobody
reviewing it and no visible action.
> - Such issues become invisible zombies. Nobody knows a decision is
owed, so the work stalls forever.
> - This pull request makes the review path a maintained invariant,
exposes a `reviewAttention` surface, and gives every stalled review
three inline actions in the UI.
> - The benefit is that an `in_review` issue always shows who reviews
it, or shows an amber "nobody is reviewing this" notice with one-click
Approve, Request changes, and Send back to work.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This pull request describes the problem inline. The tracking issue is
internal.
**Subsystem affected**
The review and attention loop that agents and humans share: the
`in_review` status, the `reviewAttention` surface, the /decisions
attention feed, and the issue-page review panel.
**Problem or motivation**
Agent-owned issues in `in_review` can lose their last review path. A
user comment supersedes the pending interaction. A monitor is exhausted.
A run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review`
with no reviewer and no visible action. It becomes an invisible zombie
and the work never progresses.
**Proposed solution**
Maintain the review path as a server invariant. Expose a
`reviewAttention` field that says what is under review, who decides, and
since when. Render a persistent review panel on the issue page and
inline actions on the /decisions feed. Keep human PATCHes into
`in_review` ungated, but record the requesting user so the panel never
renders empty.
**Alternatives considered**
A pure background auto-recovery sweep. This stays opt-in and is not
enough on its own, because it is invisible to the human. A bare status
banner. This is rejected, because it gives no action to resolve the
stall.
**Roadmap alignment**
This improves the core review and attention loop that both agents and
humans use every day.
## What Changed
- **Server — maintained review-path invariant:** when an issue enters or
sits in `in_review`, the server derives and persists a review path
(interaction, approval, monitor, or the requesting user) and recovers a
stale path with one bounded wake instead of leaving the issue pathless.
- **Server — `reviewAttention` surface:** a new field describes what is
under review (bound target with links), who decides, since when, and
whether the review is stalled. Stalled agent-assigned reviews are now
included in the attention feed.
- **Server — inline stalled-review decisions:** secured routes let a
permitted responder Approve (→ `done`), Request changes (→ `todo` + wake
carrying the note), or Send back to work (→ `todo` + wake) directly from
the attention feed.
- **Server — resume-intent wake:** an `in_review -> todo` transition now
wakes the assigned agent so a resumed review is not dropped.
- **Server — user-entry symmetry:** user PATCHes into `in_review` stay
ungated (no 422 for humans) and record the requesting user, who becomes
the named responder when no other path exists.
- **UI — review panel:** a persistent `IssueReviewPanel` renders above
the thread whenever status is `in_review`. The covered state shows the
bound target, responder, and outcomes and hoists the pending
interaction/approval card. The stalled state shows the amber notice plus
the three actions.
- **UI — decisions card actions:** the same three actions render inline
on the /decisions `AttentionQueueRow`.
- **UI — responsive fix:** the stalled action row stacks to full-width
buttons at phone width and returns to a horizontal row at `sm` and up.
New 390px stories capture the phone layout.
## Verification
- `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueReviewPanel.test.tsx
src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx src/lib/attention.test.ts
src/api/issues.test.ts` — 91 tests pass.
- Server suites added and updated: `issue-review-attention`,
`issue-stalled-review-decision-routes`, `review-path-recovery`,
`recovery-observability`, and related route/liveness tests (run by CI).
- A designer reviewed the UI at 390px and desktop in light and dark
themes on both the issue-page panel and the /decisions card. The stalled
action row stacks cleanly at phone width with no overlap and keeps the
horizontal row on desktop.
## Risks
- **Migration:** adds migration `0200` (next after master `0199`, no
renumber). It extends the agent-wakeup-requests schema and is additive.
- **Behavioral shift:** `in_review -> todo` now dispatches a wake. This
is intended (resume intent) and covered by tests.
- **Authz:** the inline decision routes are permission-gated. Only a
permitted responder sees and can trigger the actions.
- Overall risk is moderate and contained to the review and attention
loop.
## Model Used
- Claude, Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use 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
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
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
678728f650