## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent work is issue-centered, and reviewers often need to inspect
files, artifacts, and path references produced during that work.
> - Before this branch, workspace-relative paths and artifact file
references were not first-class inspectable objects in the board UI.
> - Safe file viewing needs shared resource contracts, server-side
workspace boundary checks, and UI that opens files without exposing
arbitrary host paths.
> - The workspace file viewer branch needed to stay as one active PR and
be rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` for review.
> - This pull request adds the workspace file resource API, issue-page
file viewer and browser, markdown file-reference links, and artifact
file chips.
> - The benefit is that board users can inspect relevant files from
issue context while preserving workspace boundaries and auditability.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. Internal Paperclip
issues: `PAP-1953`, `PAP-10539`, `PAP-10733`.
Problem / motivation:
- Board users need to open workspace-relative files mentioned by agents
or attached as work-product metadata without switching to a terminal.
- The UI needs to support both direct file-path opening and workspace
browsing/searching from an issue page.
- The server must enforce company access, workspace boundaries, size
limits, rate limits, and safe audit logging.
Related PR:
- Prior closed attempt: #4442
- Single active PR for this branch: #7681
## What Changed
- Added shared workspace file resource types, validators, and
workspace-file `resourceRef` metadata validation for work products.
- Added server routes/services for resolving, listing, and previewing
workspace-relative files with access checks, scan caps, list-specific
limits, and audit logging.
- Added the issue file viewer provider, sheet, workspace browser,
command-palette action, markdown workspace-file autolinks, and artifact
file chips.
- Updated issue workspace UI and stories/tests for file browsing and
workspace file opening.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
updated the existing single PR branch.
- Addressed current-head Greptile follow-ups by applying `offset`
consistently across search/recent/changed file listings, restoring
stopped-service port ownership checks before auto-port reuse, and
stabilizing the workspace browser pagination test.
## Verification
Current local verification after rebase to `public/master`:
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/work-product.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.test.tsx
ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.copy.test.tsx
ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx
ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileMarkdownBody.test.tsx
ui/src/context/FileViewerContext.test.ts
ui/src/lib/remark-workspace-file-refs.test.ts
ui/src/lib/workspace-file-parser.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueWorkspaceCard.test.tsx` - 13 files passed, 197
tests passed.
- `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server
--filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx`
- 1 file passed, 25 tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` - 2 files passed, 90
tests passed.
- `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed.
- Confirmed branch is `0` behind and `46` ahead of current
`public/master` after rebase and follow-up commits.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
- Confirmed the PR diff does not include `.github/workflows` changes.
- Searched GitHub for duplicate or related workspace file viewer
PRs/issues; #4442 is the prior closed attempt and this PR is the single
active PR for the branch.
- No screenshots were committed; the task explicitly asked not to add
design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work.
Current remote verification on head
`a698a7bc10137baf7d25bd5722e1d6e0343387c1`:
- Greptile Review - success, 64 files reviewed, 0 comments added, no
unresolved Greptile review threads.
- PR workflow `verify` - success.
- Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, workspace test shards,
serialized server suites, Build, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Socket, and Snyk -
success.
- `security-review` - neutral, with output saying a draft advisory was
filed for maintainer review and is not a merge block.
- `commitperclip PR Review / review` - cancelled after the security gate
detected flags and timed out while creating/reviewing the advisory. I
reran it once and it cancelled the same way; no actionable code/test
failure was exposed in the job logs.
## Risks
- This is a broad UI/server feature PR, so review needs to pay attention
to route authorization, workspace boundary handling, and markdown
autolink false positives.
- Workspace browsing intentionally caps list results and scan depth;
very large workspaces may require users to refine search terms.
- Remote workspace preview remains unavailable until remote file-access
support is implemented.
- The neutral commitperclip security-review advisory needs maintainer
review, but the check output says it is not a merge block.
> 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 coding agent in a Paperclip/Codex local tool-use
environment, medium reasoning, with shell/GitHub CLI tool use for branch
inspection, verification, rebase, PR update, Greptile review, and CI
inspection.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [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
- [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 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Adapter execution and retry classification decide whether agent work
pauses, retries, or recovers automatically
> - Transient provider failures need to be classified precisely so
Paperclip does not convert retryable upstream conditions into false hard
failures
> - At the same time, operators need an up-to-date model list for
Codex-backed agents and prompts should nudge agents toward targeted
verification instead of repo-wide sweeps
> - This pull request tightens transient recovery classification for
Claude and Codex, updates the agent prompt guidance, and adds Codex
model refresh support end-to-end
> - The benefit is better automatic retry behavior plus fresher
operator-facing model configuration
## What Changed
- added Codex usage-limit retry-window parsing and Claude extra-usage
transient classification
- normalized the heartbeat transient-recovery contract across adapter
executions and heartbeat scheduling
- documented that deferred comment wakes only reopen completed issues
for human/comment-reopen interactions, while system follow-ups leave
closed work closed
- updated adapter-utils prompt guidance to prefer targeted verification
- added Codex model refresh support in the server route, registry,
shared types, and agent config form
- added adapter/server tests covering the new parsing, retry scheduling,
and model-refresh behavior
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local
packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/parse.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local
packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/parse.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/adapter-model-refresh-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/adapter-models.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts`
## Risks
- Moderate behavior risk: retry classification affects whether runs
auto-recover or block, so mistakes here could either suppress needed
retries or over-retry real failures
- Low workflow risk: deferred comment wake reopening is intentionally
scoped to human/comment-reopen interactions so system follow-ups do not
revive completed issues unexpectedly
> 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-based coding agent with tool use and code execution
in the Codex CLI environment
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle
semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep
regressions visible
> - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime
correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area
> - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused
issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch
overlapping issue APIs
> - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat,
telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch
> - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness
work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit
comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting
## What Changed
- Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review
stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded
execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and
blocked-to-todo wake resumption
- Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads,
compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and
capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces
- Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on
task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material
- Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster
route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation
from local state, and repo verification follow-ups
- Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small
follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were
dropped during branch reconstruction
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts`
- `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`,
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted
on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported
init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they
are noted as environment-limited
## Risks
- Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and
reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow
rather than isolated UI polish
- Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should
pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure
modes and not just reshaping harness behavior
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution 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)
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Agents create pull requests as part of their development workflow
> - The PR template already has a "Model Used" section (added in PR
#2552)
> - But agents were not filling it in because neither AGENTS.md nor
CONTRIBUTING.md referenced it
> - This PR updates both docs to explicitly require reading and filling
in the full PR template, including Model Used
> - The benefit is that every PR will now document which AI model
produced the change, improving traceability and auditability
## What Changed
- **CONTRIBUTING.md**: Added "Model Used (Required)" subsection under
"PR Requirements (all PRs)" and listed it in the required sections
enumeration
- **AGENTS.md**: Added new "Section 10: Pull Request Requirements"
instructing agents to read and fill in every section of the PR template
when creating PRs (including Model Used). Renumbered "Definition of
Done" to Section 11 and added PR template compliance as item 5.
## Verification
- Review `CONTRIBUTING.md` — confirm "Model Used (Required)" subsection
appears under PR Requirements
- Review `AGENTS.md` — confirm Section 10 (Pull Request Requirements)
lists all required PR template sections including Model Used
- Review `AGENTS.md` — confirm Definition of Done item 5 references PR
template compliance
- No code changes, no tests to run
## Risks
- Low risk — documentation-only changes. No code, schema, or behavioral
changes.
## Model Used
- **Provider**: Anthropic Claude
- **Model ID**: claude-opus-4-6 (1M context)
- **Capabilities**: Tool use, code execution, extended context
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Update dev origin allowlist and tests to use port 3100 only, matching
the unified dev server setup. Fix AGENTS.md and README accordingly.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Dotta