## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The recovery subsystem restores work after an agent run stops or
loses state
> - Recovery notices currently use the same visual weight as normal work
comments
> - Recovery agents can also post long narratives that obscure the
useful hand-off
> - The server must identify recovery output because agents cannot set
presentation controls
> - This pull request adds compact recovery notices, structured action
references, and brief recovery prompts
> - The benefit is a quieter issue thread that still keeps recovery
state inspectable
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and
`packages/adapter-utils`.
**Problem or motivation**
Recovery notices and recovery-run comments can dominate an issue thread.
Operators must scan routine recovery narration before they find the work
hand-off.
**Proposed solution**
Give routine recovery output a compact system-notice presentation.
Derive the presentation on the server so agents cannot hide arbitrary
comments. Keep the successful missing-state summary fully visible
because that comment is the recovery deliverable.
**Alternatives considered**
The UI could detect recovery text. That approach is fragile and does not
provide structured action references. Agents could also set presentation
directly, but that would weaken the current board-only security
boundary.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change refines the completed “Self-healing runs & automatic
recovery” and “Enforced Outcomes” roadmap areas. It does not add a
competing roadmap capability.
**Additional context**
The scope covers shared comment validation, server recovery notices,
agent-comment derivation, and recovery prompt text. No database
migration is needed because presentation data already uses JSON.
## What Changed
- Add the `compact` issue-comment presentation density to shared
constants, types, and validation.
- Give recovery escalation, waiting, and in-place notices compact titles
and structured recovery-action metadata.
- Use recovery-action metadata for notice deduplication, with the legacy
text marker as a compatibility fallback.
- Derive compact presentation for comments from recovery-scoped runs
while preserving the board-only presentation boundary.
- Keep successful missing-state recovery summaries fully visible.
- Ask recovery participants to record outcomes in `resolutionNote` and
keep source-issue comments brief.
- Add shared, route, service, and prompt tests for the new behavior and
exceptions.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- Focused Vitest coverage: 320 tests passed across shared validators,
adapter prompts, issue comments, recovery actions, and heartbeat
recovery.
- Full server phase: 292 files passed, 3,094 tests passed, and 2 tests
skipped.
- Full UI phase: 386 files passed and 3,182 tests passed.
- `pnpm build`
- Known master baseline: `cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` expects
`pass`, but the current implementation returns `warn` when strict secret
mode is disabled for Postgres. This branch does not change CLI secrets
code.
## Risks
- Low migration risk. The presentation column is JSON and needs no
database migration.
- Recovery-run detection depends on the persisted run context snapshot.
- Structured metadata becomes the primary deduplication key. The
existing body marker remains as a fallback for older comments.
> 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-5.6-sol`. The runtime did not expose the
context-window size. The model used agentic reasoning, repository tools,
code execution, and test 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
- [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>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
b4a7a12985