468edd8b221fe9991e40735b5bbba621e44eb1ad
397 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Dotta
|
468edd8b22 |
Add workspace file viewer and artifact links (#7681)
## 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
0a2230b2ec |
[codex] Guard document comment wake boundaries (#7766)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The execution control plane uses issue comments, assignments, monitors, blockers, and interactions to decide when agent-owned work should wake and run. > - Top-level issue comments are actionable issue-thread feedback for the assignee, but document-scoped comments are review context unless they are converted into an explicit routing primitive. > - Document annotation comments were still wired into the same `issue_commented` wake path as top-level issue comments. > - That made document activity capable of waking an assignee and looking like an execution path even when no issue-level handoff happened. > - This pull request narrows the wake boundary so document annotation activity stays document-scoped while normal issue comments continue waking the assignee. > - The benefit is fewer spurious wakeups and clearer non-terminal issue liveness semantics. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Internal Paperclip work: [PAP-10613](/PAP/issues/PAP-10613), [PAP-10640](/PAP/issues/PAP-10640) Problem description: - Document annotation thread creation and annotation comments were treated as assignee wake sources. - Document-scoped activity should remain visible as document/review context, but should not by itself act as a queued issue wake, monitor, approval, interaction response, blocker, or terminal disposition. - Top-level issue comments should still wake the assignee on agent-assigned, non-terminal issues. Related PR search performed: - Found related prior document annotation work: #6733. - Found related prior issue-comment wake work and revert context: #7678, #7765. - No existing PR for `PAP-10613-why-is-this-task-not-running`. ## What Changed - Removed the document annotation comment assignee wake helper from issue routes. - Kept document annotation reference sync and activity logging intact. - Documented the distinction between top-level issue comments and document-scoped comments in `doc/execution-semantics.md`. - Added route tests proving document/document annotation activity does not wake the assignee. - Added route coverage proving top-level board issue comments still wake the assignee. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes.test.ts` — 2 files passed, 9 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git status -sb` — clean branch tracking `origin/PAP-10613-why-is-this-task-not-running`. ## Risks - Low to moderate behavior change: document annotation comments no longer wake the issue assignee automatically. - Operators who want document feedback to route work must use an explicit primitive such as assignment, issue-thread comment, agent mention, issue-thread interaction, approval, blocker, or delegated follow-up. - No database migration or public API shape change. > 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 shell/tool use enabled. Exact hosted runtime model identifier beyond GPT-5 was not exposed in this session. ## 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 - [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] 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
7fb40264f8 |
[codex] Revert PR #7678 (#7765)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue comment wake handoffs are part of the control-plane execution loop that decides when agents resume work after comments and issue updates. > - PR #7678 changed that wake handoff behavior in server issue routes, heartbeat context, and related tests. > - The change broke an important workflow after merge, so the safest immediate fix is to restore the pre-#7678 wake behavior. > - This pull request reverts the wake-handoff behavior from PR #7678 while keeping narrow review-requested safeguards that prevent known runtime/test regressions. > - The benefit is that Paperclip returns to the last known working wake behavior without reintroducing avoidable UUID skill lookup and annotation-resolution test gaps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #7678 Bug context: - What happened: PR #7678 was reported to have broken an important Paperclip workflow after it merged. - Expected behavior: Paperclip should preserve the prior issue comment wake handoff behavior until a corrected change is ready. - Steps to reproduce: Use the workflow affected by PR #7678's issue comment wake handoff changes. - Paperclip version/commit: `master` after merge commit `4da79a88c67e54084d40bd18cada5ee5c8be23da`. - Deployment mode: Paperclip control-plane server behavior. ## What Changed - Reverted merge commit `4da79a88c67e54084d40bd18cada5ee5c8be23da` from PR #7678 to restore pre-#7678 wake-handoff behavior. - Preserved the safe accepted-plan routing check so `parseObject(...)` is not used as a boolean. - Preserved UUID filtering for run-scoped skill mentions so legacy non-UUID skill IDs do not reach a Postgres UUID lookup. - Restored the annotation thread-resolution test guard that verifies resolving a thread does not wake the assignee. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && NODE_ENV=test PAPERCLIP_HOME=/tmp/... PAPERCLIP_INSTANCE_ID=pap10614-revert TMPDIR=/tmp/... pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1 server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-project-env.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts` - Result: 4 test files passed, 26 tests passed. - Earlier targeted revert verification also passed: 4 test files, 50 tests. ## Risks - This intentionally restores behavior from before PR #7678, so intended wake-handoff improvements from that PR are removed. - The PR is no longer a byte-for-byte revert because Greptile identified two narrow safeguards worth preserving. - Low migration risk: no schema or dependency changes are included. - Follow-up work may still be needed to reintroduce the desired wake handoff behavior without the regression. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in this Paperclip heartbeat, with shell/tool execution and repository write access. ## 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 - [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] 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 |
||
|
Nour Eddine Hamaidi
|
823c2b115a |
feat(adapters): allow external overrides of built-ins (#7394)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through server-side adapters. > - Some adapters are bundled as built-ins, while external adapter plugins can provide newer or organization-specific implementations. > - The adapter registry already supports external plugins overriding a built-in type while keeping the built-in available as fallback. > - The hot-install API still rejected built-in adapter types before registration, so plugin installation did not match registry behavior. > - That blocked users from installing an external adapter update for a built-in adapter type such as `hermes_local`. > - This pull request removes the hot-install conflict guard and keeps the existing fallback lifecycle intact. > - The benefit is consistent adapter override behavior across startup registration, hot install, pause/resume, and removal. Fixes #7395 ## What Changed - Allows `POST /api/adapters/install` to register an external adapter whose type matches a built-in adapter. - Keeps built-in adapters protected from deletion unless there is an external plugin record for that adapter type. - Tightens the install route so `requiresRestart` is only reported on a true reinstall (existing external plugin record), not on a first-time override of a built-in adapter type. - Adds route coverage for installing a built-in type override, pausing back to the built-in implementation, deleting the override, and restoring the built-in adapter. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/adapter-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/adapter-registry.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - GitHub Actions passed for server tests, typecheck, build, serialized server suites, e2e, canary dry run, Socket, Snyk, Greptile, and policy checks on the prior pushed commit before the follow-up review fix. ## Risks - Low risk: this only changes the hot-install/removal lifecycle for external plugins targeting a built-in adapter type. - Built-in adapters remain protected when no external plugin record exists. - The existing registry fallback behavior restores the built-in adapter when an override is paused or removed. > 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-5.5 via Hermes Agent for the initial implementation and verification (terminal/file/GitHub tool use). - Anthropic Claude Opus 4.7 (claude-opus-4-7) via Paperclip Claude adapter for the Greptile-feedback follow-up commit (extended-thinking reasoning, terminal/file/GitHub tool use). ## 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 confirmed none exist for this hot-install override fix - [x] I have linked the existing issue with `Fixes #7395` - [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] 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: HenkDz <henkdz@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@devinfoley.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
2d1b531a49 |
[codex] Add clear-error agent action (#7695)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runtime state is surfaced in both the server API and the board UI so operators can tell whether an agent is idle, running, paused, or in error. > - When an agent is already in `error`, the existing pause/resume action slot is not useful because there is no running work to pause. > - Operators need a direct, audited recovery path that clears the stale error state only for agents in the same company. > - This pull request adds a company-scoped clear-error mutation, exposes the shared API contract, and wires the board action cluster to show Clear error in the pause/resume slot for errored agents. > - The benefit is that operators can recover CEO/CTO-style errored agents without resorting to database edits or unrelated session reset actions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #4021 Paperclip issue: PAP-10515 — right now the CEO and CTO agents are in error state, but there is no way to clear the error; they appear otherwise fine. ## What Changed - Added shared constants, API path, and agent status type support for a company-scoped clear-error action. - Added the server service and route to clear an agent from `error` back to `idle`, with company access enforcement and activity logging. - Added OpenAPI/docs coverage for the clear-error endpoint. - Added backend coverage for service behavior and cross-tenant authorization. - Updated the board agent action cluster to show a red-tinted Clear error button only when `agent.status === "error"`. - Updated agent properties to show a red active last-error indicator only while the agent is currently errored. - Added UI component tests for the error-state action and the non-error pause/resume behavior. ## Verification Local: - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agents-service-clear-error.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/AgentActionButtons.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` PR checks: - Main Paperclip workflow is green on `a7378e584d50594e7bd507a1a02985bfaaa5abf8`. - Greptile is 5/5 with no files requiring special attention and no new comments on the latest review. - `commitperclip PR Review` is still red because its security-gate step canceled after filing a draft advisory; the linked `security-review` check is neutral and says the draft advisory is not a merge block. Visual artifact: -  ## Risks Low to medium risk. The mutation is intentionally narrow, but reviewers should check that clearing `lastError`/`lastRunError` and returning to `idle` is the desired recovery semantics for every adapter state. The remaining red check is from the external commitperclip security-review workflow, not from the code/test workflow for this PR. > 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-family coding model, tool-assisted with local shell, git, GitHub CLI, and targeted Vitest 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 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 - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
4da79a88c6 |
[codex] Refine issue comment wake handoffs (#7678)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The heartbeat and issue-comment routes decide when an assigned agent wakes up and what context it receives. > - Passive comments and annotation notes can currently wake assignees even when no actionable state changed. > - Accepted planning confirmations also need to preserve recent plan comments so child-issue creation does not lose board/user constraints. > - Runtime skill mentions should only send UUID ids into database lookups, because legacy slug-like ids are not valid runtime skill ids. > - This pull request tightens those wake and handoff rules in one server-side branch. > - The benefit is fewer noisy agent wakeups and better accepted-plan continuation context without changing the task model. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Internal Paperclip task: [PAP-10535](/PAP/issues/PAP-10535). Problem or motivation: Passive comments and annotation notes could wake the current assignee even when no actionable state changed, and accepted plan continuations needed recent plan comments preserved in the wake handoff. Runtime skill mentions also needed to ignore non-UUID ids before database lookup. Proposed solution: Tighten server-side wake routing so passive comments do not wake assignees unless they reopen the issue, preserve mention-targeted wakeups, include recent non-deleted plan comments in accepted confirmation wake payloads, and guard runtime skill mention lookup to UUID-like ids. Alternatives considered: Leaving passive assignee wakeups in place was rejected because it keeps generating noisy non-actionable heartbeats. Treating every skill mention-like token as a runtime skill id was rejected because legacy slug-like ids are not valid runtime skill ids. Roadmap alignment: This aligns with the V1 control-plane heartbeat contract by making wakeups more intentional and preserving handoff context for approved plans. This PR was split from the local `master` branch on June 7, 2026. It covers server-side heartbeat and comment-wakeup behavior only. I searched GitHub for duplicate/related PRs; the results were broader heartbeat/run PRs, not this exact passive-comment and accepted-plan handoff change. ## What Changed - Filter runtime skill mention extraction so only UUID-like skill ids are looked up. - Stop ordinary issue comments and document annotation comments from waking the current assignee unless the comment reopens the issue. - Keep mention-targeted wakeups intact while removing passive assignee wakeups. - Include recent non-deleted issue comments in accepted-plan confirmation wake payloads and task markdown. - Updated focused server tests for the new wakeup and accepted-plan behavior. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-project-env.test.ts server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-redaction.test.ts` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-redaction.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter /server typecheck` - PR checks green on head `a379a0264d384510ff8ac4a47fb1e44d7b556f68` - Greptile rerun green on head `a379a0264d384510ff8ac4a47fb1e44d7b556f68`: 9 files reviewed, 0 comments added, 0 unresolved review threads ## Risks - Medium behavioral risk: agents will no longer wake for passive comments unless mentioned or unless the comment reopens/resumes the issue. That is intentional, but any workflow relying on passive assignee comment wakeups should use explicit mentions or structured resume paths. - Low migration risk: no schema or migration changes. > 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell, git, GitHub CLI, and local test execution. Exact hosted model variant and context-window size were not exposed by the runtime. ## 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 - [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] 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
71a8464fee |
[codex] prevent invalid agents from receiving assignments and runs (#7663)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The control plane owns agent lifecycle, issue assignment, routine dispatch, heartbeat wakeups, and recovery paths > - Terminated, paused, pending-approval, or otherwise invalid agents should not receive new work or new execution attempts > - The old behavior left eligibility checks spread across routes and services, so assignment and run paths could drift apart > - This pull request centralizes agent lifecycle eligibility and applies it consistently to assignment, invocation, routines, recovery, and UI affordances > - The benefit is safer autonomy: terminated agents stay paused, invalid org-chain agents are surfaced, and active agents keep receiving valid work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #5103 Related: #1864 Bug fix context: - What happened: agent assignment and heartbeat/run paths did not share one eligibility contract, so invalid lifecycle states could still be considered in some paths. - Expected behavior: terminated agents must never receive new assignments or heartbeat runs, and paused or otherwise invalid agents should be treated as non-invokable consistently. - Steps to reproduce: create or select an agent in an invalid lifecycle state, then attempt assignment, routine dispatch, or heartbeat/recovery wake paths. - Paperclip version/commit: fixed on top of `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` at the PR base. - Deployment mode: applies to the server control plane in local and authenticated deployments. ## What Changed - Added shared agent lifecycle eligibility helpers and exported the related shared types. - Centralized server-side assignability and invokability checks for issue assignment, agent routes, heartbeat dispatch, routines, recovery, and liveness logic. - Hardened issue assignment so invalid assignees are rejected instead of queued for work. - Hardened heartbeat/routine/recovery paths so terminated and otherwise invalid agents are not woken for new runs. - Updated board UI affordances to disable invalid agent actions and surface org-chain warnings where relevant. - Added targeted shared, server, and UI tests for the new eligibility behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/agent-eligibility.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-invokability.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-archived-company-guard.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts ui/src/lib/company-members.test.ts ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx` — 8 files, 144 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Checked the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is a targeted control-plane safety fix and does not duplicate a planned core feature. - Searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs/issues; closest related items are linked above. - CI and Greptile verification are pending on the opened PR and will be followed up before requesting merge. ## Risks Low to moderate risk. The intended behavioral shift is that invalid agents are refused earlier and more consistently, which could expose existing data with paused, pending, terminated, or broken org-chain assignees. The added tests cover the critical assignment, heartbeat, routine, recovery, shared helper, and UI paths. No database migrations are included. > 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 GPT-5 Codex via the Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use. Reasoning mode and context window are managed by the adapter runtime and not exposed in this 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 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 - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (not applicable: no design screenshots requested; UI behavior is covered by tests) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (not applicable: no user-facing command or schema docs changed) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending CI) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending Greptile) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
4d5322c821 |
[codex] Add checkbox confirmation issue interactions (#7649)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent work is coordinated through issues, comments, interactions, and approval-style handoffs. > - Existing issue-thread interactions could ask questions, suggest tasks, and request confirmation, but they did not support a structured checkbox confirmation payload for choosing one or more options. > - That gap made board/user confirmations harder to validate consistently across API callers, plugin helpers, CLI tooling, and the UI. > - This pull request adds the shared checkbox confirmation contract, server handling, client helpers, and issue-thread UI needed to render and submit structured selections. > - The benefit is that agents can request bounded multi-select confirmations in the same audited issue-thread flow as other Paperclip interactions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - No public GitHub issue found for this exact branch. Internal Paperclip issue: PAP-10415 / PAP-10441 requested creating this PR for the checkbox confirmation issue-thread UI component work. - GitHub duplicate search performed for checkbox confirmation / issue-thread interaction PRs; no matching open PR was found. - Related issue search result `#7497` was unrelated company file cleanup work, so it is not linked as a related issue. ## What Changed - Added shared types, validators, constants, and tests for `request_checkbox_confirmation` interactions. - Extended server issue-thread interaction service and routes for checkbox confirmation creation, validation, expiration, and response handling. - Added CLI, MCP, and plugin SDK helper coverage so external callers can create the new interaction shape consistently. - Updated the issue-thread interaction UI to render checkbox confirmations with min/max bounds, selection summaries, stale-target states, and accept/decline flows. - Documented the checkbox confirmation interaction contract in the Paperclip skill/API reference. ## Verification - Rebased cleanly on `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` fetched into `public-gh/master` at `a4fa0eaf5`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Ran focused tests with `NODE_ENV=test`: ```sh NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/issue-subresources.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/project-goal.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts ``` Result: 8 test files passed, 78 tests passed. - CI on latest head `63b9e55` is green. - Greptile Review passed on latest head; GraphQL review-thread check shows all Greptile threads resolved. ## Risks - Medium surface area because the interaction contract touches shared validators, server routes/services, UI rendering, CLI, MCP, plugin SDK helpers, and docs. - No database migrations are included. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repository lockfile policy. - UI screenshots are not attached because the task explicitly requested not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work; component tests cover the new rendering and interaction states. > 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository file access, shell command execution, git/GitHub CLI tooling, and Paperclip control-plane API access. Exact hosted model ID/context-window metadata is not exposed inside this runtime. ## 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
4693d770aa |
Add company artifacts page (#7621)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators need a way to inspect files and work products created by agents across a company without opening each issue one by one. > - The existing issue detail surfaces already show attachments and outputs, but there was no company-level artifacts index or search-result affordance for artifact-like records. > - The backend needed a company-scoped artifacts projection API that preserves issue/run attribution and safe links back to source records. > - The UI needed a first-class Artifacts page, sidebar entry, reusable artifact cards, and deep-link handling that keeps company prefixes intact. > - This pull request adds the company artifacts API and page, then wires artifacts into search and issue output surfaces. > - The benefit is a single place to browse, filter, and open generated work products and attachments while preserving company boundaries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #7622. Feature request fields: - Problem/motivation: company operators need a consolidated artifacts surface for attachments and work products produced by agents. - Proposed solution: add a company-scoped artifacts projection endpoint, a board Artifacts route, reusable cards, sidebar navigation, and artifact search integration. - Alternatives considered: keep artifact discovery only on individual issue pages; that forces operators to know the source issue before finding generated outputs. - Roadmap alignment: checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is a focused board UI/API improvement and does not duplicate a listed roadmap item. ## What Changed - Added shared artifact types and validators. - Added a company-scoped artifact projection service/API with tests for attachment/work-product attribution. - Added Artifacts board UI route, API client, sidebar link, cards, filters, and storybook coverage. - Added artifact result handling to company search and issue output/deep-link flows. - Rebased the branch onto the latest `public-gh/master` state and resolved the route-test conflict by preserving both upstream team-catalog coverage and artifact route coverage. - Fixed a local Sidebar test helper so it no longer depends on a runtime-undefined `React.act` export in this dependency install. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/artifacts/ArtifactCard.test.tsx src/api/artifacts.test.ts src/lib/company-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Artifacts.test.tsx src/pages/Search.test.tsx src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-artifacts-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-search-rate-limit-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`. - Duplicate search: no open PRs or issues found for `artifact page ArtifactCard` in `paperclipai/paperclip`. Screenshots are intentionally omitted per the internal task instruction not to add design screenshots or images to this PR unless they are specifically part of the work. I also attempted browser capture in this runner, but `agent-browser` failed to launch Chrome and Playwright Chromium is missing `libatk-1.0.so.0`. ## Risks - Low-to-medium risk: this adds a new API projection and UI surface, so attribution/link regressions could affect artifact navigation. - Company scoping is covered in the new service/API tests. - No database migrations are included. - No lockfile or workflow changes are included. > 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 with tool use and local command execution. Exact hosted model identifier is not exposed in this runtime. ## 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 (intentionally omitted per task instruction; browser capture unavailable in this runner) - [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 - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
dbebf30c89 |
Add low-trust review containment (#7530)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution policy and trust boundaries are part of the product's safety contract. > - Low-trust review work needs narrower authority than normal same-company agents because hostile PRs, comments, attachments, and generated output can carry prompt-injection payloads. > - The current V1 shape gives trusted workers broad company context, which is useful for normal execution but too permissive for a reviewer assigned to hostile content. > - This branch adds a `low_trust_review` preset, source-trust tagging, route-level containment, and quarantine handling so low-trust output does not automatically flow into higher-trust wake context. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `origin/master`, and the low-trust migration was renumbered to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` to avoid collisions with existing `0091` through `0096` migrations. > - Greptile feedback was addressed by tightening low-trust detection, preserving project-level trust policy checks, fixing issue-kind promotion lookup, removing duplicate post-lease isolation assertion, documenting fail-closed source-trust behavior, bounding ancestry checks, enforcing runtime issue context for CEOs, awaiting accepted-plan monitor authorization, and making low-trust issue source-trust tagging atomic. > - The benefit is a first production slice of deny-by-default review containment with regression coverage for the main control-plane pivot surfaces. Fixes #7531. ## What Changed - Added shared trust-policy types and validators, plus database/source-trust fields for issues, comments, documents, and work products. - Implemented server enforcement for low-trust issue scope, agent self-view redaction, secret/plugin/runtime denial paths, promotion checks, and quarantined continuation/wake context. - Added focused low-trust regression tests for resolver behavior, source trust, route authorization, heartbeat preflight ordering, runtime containment, and quarantine redaction. - Added board UI affordances for selecting/reviewing the low-trust preset and surfacing source-trust badges in relevant issue views. - Added `doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md`, updated `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and committed the low-trust review contract plan under `doc/plans/`. - Rebasing note: the original `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` migration was renamed to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied the old-numbered migration are not broken by the renumbered migration. ## Verification - Rebased branch onto current `origin/master` and force-pushed with lease to `origin/PAP-10211-low-trust-agent` at head `2719f31e3`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Resolved upstream UI/comment conflicts by preserving deleted-comment tombstone behavior and low-trust source-trust badges/metadata. - Renumbered the low-trust source-trust migration to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied an old-numbered copy are not broken. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/source-trust.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts ui/src/lib/trust-policy-ui.test.ts ui/src/components/TrustPresetSection.test.tsx` - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` - `git diff --check` - GitHub checks pass on head `2719f31e3`: build, typecheck/release registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary, verify, policy/review, Socket, and Snyk. - Greptile Review passes with Confidence Score 5/5 and zero unresolved Greptile review threads. - No design screenshots/images were added because the task explicitly says not to add them unless they are specifically part of the work. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches shared trust-policy contracts, server authorization paths, heartbeat context generation, migration metadata, and UI preset controls. - Low-trust containment is intentionally deny-by-default; legitimate future review workflows may need explicit allowlisted exceptions. - Plugin/runtime/security surfaces are broad, so regression tests cover the current known routes but future integrations must route through the same containment layer. - The PR is ready for review; GitHub checks are green and Greptile is 5/5. > 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, tool-enabled shell and GitHub CLI workflow. ## 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 - [x] UI changes are covered by focused tests; no screenshots were added per task instruction not to add design images unless specifically required - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
fff3832a01 |
[codex] Add teams catalog extraction (#7550)
Fixes #7551 ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies, and reusable company/team setup is part of making those companies faster to launch. > - The teams catalog work introduces app-shipped team templates that can be browsed, previewed, and installed into a company. > - Catalog installation crosses several contracts: bundled package contents, shared API types, server import/install behavior, CLI workflows, and the board UI. > - Agents also need a safe path through catalog installs: scoped company selection, explicit source policy, approval fallback for agent creation, and preserved catalog provenance. > - This pull request extracts the completed teams catalog branch into one reviewable PR on top of `public-gh/master`. > - The benefit is a reusable teams catalog foundation with server, CLI, package, docs, and hidden UI surfaces kept in sync. ## What Changed - Added the `@paperclipai/teams-catalog` package with bundled/optional team definitions, generated manifest, validators, catalog builder tests, and migration notes. - Added shared teams catalog types/validators plus server routes and services for listing, previewing, and installing catalog teams. - Integrated catalog install with company portability, skill/source policy checks, provenance metadata, origin hashes, target-manager reparenting, and installed/out-of-date detection. - Added CLI `teams` commands and agent-safe company selection behavior, including `company current` and approval fallback for forbidden agent-run installs. - Added hidden Team Catalog UI/API/query surfaces, Storybook fixtures, and targeted UI tests while keeping the UI route out of primary navigation. - Added docs for CLI/company/teams catalog behavior and removed generated screenshot artifacts from the PR diff. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/teams.test.ts packages/teams-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts packages/teams-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-install-no-overrides.test.ts ui/src/lib/company-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/TeamCard.test.tsx ui/src/pages/TeamCatalog.test.tsx ui/src/pages/useInstallTeamCatalogEntry.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/teams-catalog typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Confirmed branch is rebased onto `public-gh/master` (`78dc3625a`) and `public-gh/master` is an ancestor of `HEAD`. - Confirmed PR diff excludes `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows/*`, generated screenshot images, and screenshot helper scripts. ## Risks - Medium review surface: this crosses package generation, shared contracts, server install behavior, CLI, docs, and hidden UI code. - Catalog install behavior creates agents/projects/tasks/skills and must keep company scoping, permissions, source policy, and provenance checks strict. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repo policy; CI/default-branch automation owns lockfile refresh. - The Team Catalog UI is included but hidden from primary navigation, so future enablement should re-check visual QA before exposure. > 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`. > > ROADMAP checked: this aligns with reusable companies/templates and plugin-adjacent onboarding work. This PR packages work already developed on the Paperclip task branch for review. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 series coding agent in this Paperclip session; exact runtime context window was not exposed. Used shell, git, `gh`, and local test/typecheck tooling. ## 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 - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots, or documented why screenshots are intentionally omitted - [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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
3657854e5e |
Merge pull request #7554 from paperclipai/codex/pap-10343-comment-redaction
[codex] Redact deleted issue comments |
||
|
Dotta
|
9aa065a38c |
Make deleted-comment cleanup atomic
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
39e0fba65f | Filter issues by plan document | ||
|
Dotta
|
7f70759e61 | Redact deleted issue comments | ||
|
Aron Prins
|
1227bb8ead |
Improve OpenAPI spec coverage and auth metadata (#4579)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Its REST API is the control-plane contract for the board UI, agents,
plugins, and external integrations
> - This branch adds `/api/openapi.json`, which makes the generated
OpenAPI document part of that contract instead of an internal
implementation detail
> - Once the spec is published, it has to match the mounted Express
routes, auth model, and real HTTP behavior closely enough for client
generation and review
> - The existing spec drifted from the live server: it missed mounted
routes, documented a few nonexistent ones, omitted auth semantics, and
normalized response codes too aggressively
> - This pull request makes the generated spec track the real API
surface, exposes security requirements, and adds regression coverage so
drift is caught automatically
> - The benefit is that Paperclip's published API description becomes
trustworthy for integrators, SDK generation, and review without changing
runtime auth enforcement
## What Changed
- Added the OpenAPI endpoint wiring under `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`
so `/api/openapi.json` is generated from the current route-backed
OpenAPI builder.
- Replaced generic request/response bodies with typed schemas where
available so the generated document carries useful structure instead of
opaque blobs.
- Expanded the generated spec to cover the mounted route set, including
access/member flows, CLI auth challenge routes, invite acceptance, issue
thread interaction routes, adapter environment testing, budget policy
routes, resource memberships, secret provider routes, cloud upstream
routes, and `/api/openapi.json` itself.
- Corrected documented path mismatches such as `skills/scan` vs
`skills/scan-projects`, and other route-name/path drift.
- Added security schemes plus operation-level security metadata so
public, authenticated, board-only, and instance-admin endpoints are
distinguishable in the generated contract.
- Fixed reviewed response-code mismatches for create/accept flows and
authz failures, including `201`, `202`, and `403` cases that were
previously flattened away.
- Added `server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` to diff the
generated spec against mounted server routes and assert key
auth/response invariants.
- Hardened the route-drift test after review feedback: it now handles
single/double/template route literals, fails on unlisted route files
that declare router methods, and filters OpenAPI path-item keys to HTTP
methods only.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
Manual notes:
- Confirmed the generated spec now matches the mounted route set in the
focused regression test.
- Confirmed `/api/plugins/install` is marked privileged in the generated
security metadata.
- Confirmed `POST /api/invites/{token}/accept` documents `202`.
- Addressed the Greptile route coverage comments and reran the focused
OpenAPI test, typecheck, and build successfully.
## Risks
- Medium-low risk. The main risk is ongoing spec drift if new routes are
added without updating the OpenAPI builder, but the regression test now
fails on unknown route files that declare router methods.
- The auth metadata is descriptive only; it does not change runtime
enforcement. If reviewers assume this PR hardens server auth behavior,
that would be an incorrect expectation.
- This change increases the amount of hand-maintained OpenAPI mapping in
`server/src/routes/openapi.ts`, so future API additions still need
discipline.
> 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. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in Codex desktop. Exact
internal model variant/version and context-window size are not exposed
in this environment. Tool-enabled coding workflow with terminal
execution, git, and GitHub integration.
## 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
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots or confirmed screenshots are not applicable
- [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: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
Devin Foley
|
244a5b8002 |
fix(plugins): allow agent JWTs to access plugin tool endpoints (supersedes #3272, with regression tests from #5549) (#7480)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Plugin tools are how agents call into plugin-contributed capabilities (`GET /api/plugins/tools`, `POST /api/plugins/tools/execute`) > - Those two routes previously required board-level authentication, so agent-issued JWTs were rejected — agents couldn't actually use the very tools the plugin system was built to expose to them > - Two community PRs (#3272 by @nullEFFORT and #5549 by @aperim-agent) independently fixed this, but both went stale against master and neither could be merged as-is > - This pull request lands #3272's authz-helper approach (`assertBoardOrAgent`) rebased on current master, and adds the regression test suite from #5549 adapted to #3272's symbol names > - The benefit is agents can finally call plugin tools while preserving the existing board-scoped checks for the rest of the plugin admin surface ## What Changed - Adds `assertBoardOrAgent(req)` helper in `server/src/routes/authz.ts` — accepts either a board user or an agent JWT - Applies `assertBoardOrAgent` (in place of `assertBoard`) on `GET /api/plugins/tools` and `POST /api/plugins/tools/execute` so agent-issued tokens can list and execute plugin tools - Updates the file-level doc comment on `server/src/routes/plugins.ts` to note the agent-accessible routes - Adds `server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts` (118 lines, 34 cases) covering: agent JWT can list tools, agent JWT can execute within its company scope, agent JWT is rejected when `runContext.companyId` is outside its authenticated scope, agent JWT is rejected when `runContext.agentId` does not belong to `runContext.companyId`, plus the existing board/admin paths ## Verification - \`pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts\` → **34/34 passing** locally - Diff vs master is exactly 3 files: \`authz.ts\` (+6), \`plugins.ts\` (+5/-3), \`plugin-routes-authz.test.ts\` (+118). No other surfaces touched. ## Risks Low risk. - Authorization is being *widened* on two specific routes (board → board or agent), not narrowed elsewhere. Every other plugin admin route still uses \`assertBoard\` / \`assertInstanceAdmin\` / \`assertBoardOrgAccess\`. - Agent JWTs already encode \`companyId\` and \`agentId\`; the existing \`validateToolRunContextScope\` queue still enforces that an agent cannot execute a tool against a different company or impersonate another agent. Regression coverage for both is included. - No schema, migration, or wire-protocol changes. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), \`claude-opus-4-7\` via Claude Code, extended thinking enabled, tool use 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 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 — N/A, server-only change - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (file-level doc comment on \`plugins.ts\`) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge ## Provenance / credit This PR supersedes two community PRs that addressed the same agent-JWT plugin-tools authz gap: - **#3272 by @nullEFFORT** — original \`assertBoardOrAgent\` helper and the two route changes. \`fix: allow agent JWTs to access plugin tool endpoints\` (commit \`6991380\`) is cherry-picked here with author attribution preserved. - **#5549 by @aperim-agent** — regression test suite. Adapted to #3272's symbol names (\`assertBoardOrAgent\`, three-row \`validateToolRunContextScope\` queue) and included here. Both originals went stale against master and could not be force-pushed to the contributor forks from our OAuth-app-scoped tooling (workflow files in our \`master\` introduce a \`workflow\` scope requirement on pushes to those forks). This PR ships the same fix from our own branch so we can land it without that blocker. --------- Co-authored-by: Chad <chad@nulleffort.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
93206f73fa |
fix: Stop archived companies from waking agents (#7478)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Each agent has a heartbeat scheduler that wakes it on timers and on
events; every wake spawns an adapter (Claude / Codex / …) run that bills
the operator's subscription
> - When an operator archives a company, the agents inside it remain in
invokable states — the heartbeat scheduler never consults company status
— so timers keep firing and event-driven wakes (comments, mentions,
blockers-resolved, etc.) keep cascading
> - On real deployments this silently drains the operator's
subscription: idle archived companies wake their CEOs hourly, plus any
cross-company event cascade
> - This pull request enforces "archived ⇒ never spawns a run" as a
structural invariant by guarding the wake path AND cascading agent state
on archive/reactivate
> - The benefit is that archived companies stop billing the operator,
and the UI/queue stays consistent with the invariant
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`:
- `enqueueWakeup()` loads the company and short-circuits when status is
not `active`. Background sources (timer, automation, events) write a
`company.inactive` skipped wake and return `null`; explicit user invokes
throw a `conflict` so the UI surfaces the real reason.
- `tickTimers()` joins agents to active companies so the scheduler does
not iterate archived-company agents at all (no skip-row noise).
- `server/src/services/companies.ts`:
- `archive(id, actor?)` pauses runnable agents with `pauseReason =
"company_archived"` inside the transaction (preserving
`pending_approval`, `terminated`, and agents paused for unrelated
reasons), then cancels `queued`/`running` heartbeat runs after the
transaction commits.
- `update(id, data, actor?)` reverses the cascade only for agents whose
`pauseReason === "company_archived"` on the `archived → active`
transition; manually-paused agents stay paused.
- Both methods emit activity-log entries (`company.archived` with
`agentsPaused` + `runsCancelled`, `company.reactivated` with
`agentsRestored`) so the audit trail fires regardless of caller.
- `packages/shared/src/constants.ts` + `server/src/services/budgets.ts`:
add `company_archived` to the legal `PauseReason` union so the
restorable marker is a first-class value.
-
`packages/db/src/migrations/0094_backfill_archived_company_agent_pauses.sql`:
backfill so existing archived-company agents become `paused /
company_archived` (excludes `pending_approval`).
- `ui/src/lib/activity-format.ts`: add the `company.reactivated` label.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/companies-service.test.ts` — archive
cascade, reactivate cascade, and activity-log entries (with counts) all
pass.
- `npx vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-archived-company-guard.test.ts` — timer +
on-demand + event-wake paths all blocked for archived companies;
`company.inactive` skipped-wake row written; user-initiated wakes throw
`conflict`.
- `pnpm typecheck` — clean.
- Manual repro from the bug description: archive a company, wait an
interval / post a comment on one of its issues, observe zero new
heartbeat runs.
## Risks
- Migration `0094` is a single bulk UPDATE on `agents` joined to
archived `companies`. On large deployments it briefly holds row locks on
archived-company agent rows; should be quick because the predicate is
narrow (`status NOT IN (paused, terminated, pending_approval)` and
`companies.status = 'archived'`).
- New `pauseReason` value (`company_archived`) is opaque to older
clients that only know the previous union. Acceptable because the union
is read as plain text and the contract is sync'd in the same change.
- Behavior change for users: invoking an agent in an archived company
now fails with a conflict instead of silently spawning a run. Intended.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic) — model `claude-opus-4-7` ("Opus 4.7"), Claude Code
CLI, with tool use (Read/Edit/Bash/Grep). No extended thinking mode.
## 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 — N/A, no UI changes beyond an activity-log label string
- [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
## Related Work
Fixes #1348 (`[Bug] Archived companies still running heartbeats and
consuming tokens`).
Prior attempts and parallel work in this area:
- #1365 and #1429 by @hungdqdesign (March 2026) — both closed without
merging. Same three-layer shape (`tickTimers` / `enqueueWakeup` /
`resumeQueuedRuns` + archive-route cancellation) targeting #1348. Credit
for first publicly proposing the wake-path-guard approach.
- #5865 by @stubbi (May 2026, open) — adds the same `companies.status !=
'archived'` joins to `tickTimers`, `enqueueWakeup`, `resumeQueuedRuns`,
**and** routines `tickScheduledTriggers`, bundled with plugin-table
tenant isolation (`plugin_entities` / `plugin_job_runs` / `plugin_logs`
/ `plugin_webhook_deliveries` get a `companyId` FK with `ON DELETE
CASCADE`). This PR is narrower — it does not touch routines or plugin
tables — but adds the **archive cascade** (pause agents with
`pauseReason = "company_archived"`), the **reactivate reverse**
(un-pause only that subset), the **`company_archived` pause-reason
marker**, and a **backfill migration** for pre-existing archived
companies, which #5865 does not include. Happy to coordinate sequencing
or rebase if #5865 lands first.
|
||
|
Aron Prins
|
70b1a9109d |
Improve CLI API parity coverage (#6626)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, with the CLI acting as a scriptable operator and agent interface to that control plane. > - The REST API surface has grown across companies, agents, issues, routines, plugins, auth, workspaces, secrets, and operational inspection commands. > - The CLI had drifted from that API surface: some commands were missing, some command shapes differed from docs/reference material, and several edge cases only failed during end-to-end local-source testing. > - The local development runbook requires these tests to be disposable and isolated from a real `~/.paperclip`, `~/.codex`, or `~/.claude` installation. > - This pull request adds broad CLI/API parity coverage, fixes the actionable bugs found during that pass, and records the reproducible test log under `doc/logs`. > - The benefit is a more complete, scriptable CLI surface with regression coverage for the command families exercised by the parity run. ## What Changed - Added or expanded CLI command coverage for access/auth, companies, agents, projects, goals, issues and subresources, routines, plugins, workspaces, activity/run/cost/dashboard inspection, assets, skills, secrets, tokens, prompt/wake flows, and local setup helpers. - Fixed CLI/API parity bugs found during the run, including context profile patching, issue interaction optional payloads, malformed tree-hold errors, environment duplicate handling, configure invalid-section exit codes, worktree pnpm invocation, token agent ID resolution, plugin tool worker lookup, and routine webhook secret cleanup. - Added missing CLI wrappers and route coverage for health/access, invite resolution URL forwarding, join status normalization, secret lifecycle commands, LLM docs routes, available-skill isolation, positive board-claim coverage, and interactive `connect` prompt-flow tests. - Added a schema-backed `/api/openapi.json` route sufficient for CLI parity and `paperclipai openapi --json` smoke coverage. - Added `doc/logs/2026-05-24-cli-api-parity-e2e-log.md` with the detailed living test/bug log and renamed the log directory from `doc/bugs` to `doc/logs`. - Added `doc/plans/2026-05-23-cli-api-parity.md` and the OpenAPI parity reference used during the pass. OpenAPI note: this PR intentionally does not try to subsume `feature/openapi-spec`. The OpenAPI implementation here is schema-backed and better than the earlier route-inventory stub, but `feature/openapi-spec` is the fuller/better OpenAPI branch because it includes exact mounted-route coverage tests and additional current route coverage. That branch should stay as its own PR and can supersede this OpenAPI route implementation. ## Verification Targeted automated checks run: - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/board-claim.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/connect.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/agent-lifecycle.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` - `pnpm --dir cli typecheck` - `pnpm --dir server typecheck` Manual/local E2E verification: - Ran the full disposable local-source CLI/API parity pass with isolated `PAPERCLIP_HOME`, `PAPERCLIP_CONFIG`, `PAPERCLIP_CONTEXT`, `PAPERCLIP_AUTH_STORE`, `CODEX_HOME`, and `CLAUDE_HOME` under `tmp/cli-api-parity`. - Verified `DATABASE_URL` and `DATABASE_MIGRATION_URL` stayed unset for the scratch server. - Verified live health and schema-backed OpenAPI responses on non-default port `3197`. - Revoked created board/agent tokens and cleaned up temporary plugins, secrets, non-default environments, and project workspaces. - See `doc/logs/2026-05-24-cli-api-parity-e2e-log.md` for the full command-by-command reproduction log. Not run: - Full `pnpm test`, `pnpm test:run`, or `pnpm build` were not run after the entire branch because the branch is broad and the parity pass used focused test/typecheck verification plus live isolated CLI reruns. ## Risks - This is a broad PR and touches many CLI command modules, so review surface is high. The changes are grouped around one theme, but a split may be easier if maintainers prefer narrower PRs. - The OpenAPI route in this PR is not the final/best OpenAPI implementation. `feature/openapi-spec` has stronger exact-route coverage and should remain the source for the dedicated OpenAPI PR. - The living log is intentionally detailed and large. It is useful for reproducibility but adds documentation weight. - No UI changes are intended; screenshots are not applicable. > 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 in Codex desktop. Exact served model/context-window identifier was not exposed in the local app. Work used shell/Git/GitHub CLI tooling, local source inspection, targeted test execution, and live isolated Paperclip CLI/API smoke testing. ## 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 - [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: Devin Foley <devin@devinfoley.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
8af359b656 |
Detect misclassified video attachments
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
04a19cbc6e | Address artifact PR review feedback | ||
|
Dotta
|
bbf77fcb69 | Harden issue artifact metadata | ||
|
Dotta
|
75f88c588c | Support video issue attachments | ||
|
Devin Foley
|
d9f91576a0 |
Add accepted-plan decomposition exact-once guards and UI state (#6831)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so planning approvals and child-issue fan-out are part of the core control-plane loop. > - Accepted plans are supposed to be a safe bridge from planning into execution, especially when agents wake from review decisions and reuse isolated workspaces. > - The duplicate-subtask incident showed that an accepted plan revision could be interpreted more than once across overlapping runs, which broke the single-source-of-truth model for issue decomposition. > - Fixing that required tightening the backend contract first: accepted-plan decomposition needs an exact-once fingerprint, durable claim state, and retry-safe child creation. > - Once that backend behavior existed, the board still needed visibility into what happened, so the issue detail view needed a dedicated decomposition section instead of forcing operators to reconstruct child creation from raw activity. > - This pull request adds the exact-once decomposition primitive, hardens wake routing and regressions around the incident, and surfaces decomposition state in the UI so future incidents are both prevented and easier to inspect. ## What Changed - Added accepted-plan decomposition semantics to `doc/execution-semantics.md`, including the exact-once fingerprint, durable claim/result expectations, and retry/resume behavior. - Added persistent accepted-plan decomposition claims in the backend, including schema, shared types/validators, service logic, and issue routes for creating and listing decomposition state. - Hardened heartbeat routing so an accepted-plan continuation stays scoped to the relevant planning issue instead of opportunistically re-decomposing another accepted issue on the same assignee. - Added regression coverage for the original failure modes: concurrent same-parent retries, cross-issue accepted-plan isolation, and partial child recreation under the same fingerprint. - Added the `Plan decomposition` issue-detail section plus supporting API/query-key/activity formatting updates so operators can see revision status, owner, child counts, and the linked child issues directly in the UI. - Included the small follow-up UI fix so the decomposition section still renders when the issue work mode is no longer `planning`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "lists persisted decompositions with child issue summaries"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "accepted plan decomposition" server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts` - Manual UI path: create a planning issue without an isolated execution workspace, add a `plan` document, accept the `request_confirmation`, let Paperclip create child issues, then reopen the parent issue detail page and confirm the `Plan decomposition` section shows the accepted revision, status, idempotent-claim badge, and child links. - Separate follow-up bug noted during manual UI validation: accepting a plan on an issue whose run never records `workspace_finalize` is tracked in `PAPA-445` and is not part of this PR’s fix scope. ## Risks - This adds a new migration and a large Drizzle snapshot update; reviewers should confirm the schema shape and generated metadata match the intended decomposition table. - The exact-once claim changes sit on the accepted-plan fan-out path, so regressions there could block legitimate child creation or mis-handle retries if the claim state machine is wrong. - The new UI only appears when decomposition records exist; reviewers should use the manual verification path above rather than expecting existing issues on a stale local instance to show the section automatically. - `PAPA-445` remains an open follow-up for the `workspace_finalize` accept gate when a planning handoff never records finalize; that bug can interfere with reproducing the UI flow on isolated workspaces but does not change the correctness of the exact-once decomposition feature itself. > Checked `ROADMAP.md`: this PR is a bug fix / control-plane hardening change for accepted-plan decomposition, not a new uncoordinated roadmap feature. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` (GPT-5-based coding agent; exact backend model ID/context window not exposed in the run context), with repository tool use, shell execution, and code-editing capabilities. <img width="806" height="1069" alt="Screenshot 2026-05-27 at 11 05 48 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5b00b670-96cd-4470-b0a3-581743bcae28" /> ## 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
9eac727cf1 |
[codex] Add skills CLI and catalog management (#6782)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies through company-scoped control-plane workflows. > - Agents need reusable, inspectable skills that can be installed, reset, audited, exported, and assigned without bespoke local setup. > - The existing skill truth model needed cleanup so bundled skills, optional catalog skills, runtime skills, and adapter-provided skills have clear provenance. > - Operators also need a practical CLI and board UI for discovering and managing company skills. > - This pull request adds the skills CLI, packaged skills catalog, company skills APIs, and catalog-aware board UI. > - The benefit is a more reusable Paperclip company setup where skills are portable, auditable, and easier for operators and agents to manage. ## What Changed - Added `paperclipai skills` CLI commands and coverage for catalog listing, installing, resetting, and inspecting company skills. - Added a packaged `@paperclipai/skills-catalog` workspace with bundled and optional skill content plus validation/build tests. - Added shared company-skill types and validators used across CLI, server, and UI contracts. - Added server catalog APIs/services for company skill catalog operations, reset semantics, audit behavior, and portability provenance. - Updated adapter skill handling so runtime/catalog provenance remains explicit across local adapters. - Added board UI support for browsing and managing catalog-backed company skills. - Updated docs for the skills CLI/catalog flow and the company skills Paperclip skill reference. - Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master`; no `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows`, or migration files are included in the final PR diff. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/skills.test.ts packages/skills-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts packages/skills-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/company-skill.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/plugins/create-paperclip-plugin/src/entrypoints.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-catalog-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts`. - Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "default branch|origin/master|symbolic-ref"`. - Attempted: full `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts`. Four provisioning tests failed while seeding an isolated worktree database from the local Paperclip instance because the local plugin schema dump contains a duplicate-column foreign key (`plugin_content_machine_18a7bc327b.content_case_signals`). The default-branch tests touched by the rebase conflict passed in the focused run above. - Checked final diff: no `pnpm-lock.yaml`, no `.github/workflows`, and no migration-file changes relative to `master`. ## Risks - Medium: this is a broad skills/catalog change touching CLI, server APIs, shared contracts, adapter skill sync, and UI. - Catalog validation and reset semantics need careful reviewer attention because they affect reusable company setup and portability. - No database migrations are included in this PR, so there is no migration ordering/idempotency risk in the final diff. - No lockfile is included by design; dependency resolution will be handled by the repository lockfile workflow. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, running in Paperclip via the `codex_local` adapter with shell, git, GitHub CLI, and code-editing tool access. Exact hosted model build/context-window metadata is not exposed in this runtime. ## 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 targeted tests locally and documented the local workspace-runtime seed failure above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, screenshots were intentionally omitted per PAP-10124 instructions; UI behavior is covered by tests and reviewer inspection - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
8da50dbcf8 |
[codex] Add private browser first-admin claim flow (#6755)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Fresh self-hosted deployments need an operator path before any invite exists. > - Umbrel installs are private LAN deployments, so a one-time browser claim is appropriate only when the deployment is private and unclaimed. > - Public deployments and installs with active invites must keep the existing invite-only model so admin creation is not exposed broadly. > - GitHub PR #2927 established the useful direction, but it needed to be adapted onto current `master` rather than merged as-is. > - This pull request adds that adapted private-only claim flow across server, UI, docs, and regression coverage. > - The benefit is that a fresh private Umbrel-style install can be claimed from the browser without weakening public deployment access. ## What Changed - Added a first-admin claim service and access route support for one-time admin claim eligibility on private unclaimed deployments. - Updated the bootstrap/access UI so eligible private installs show a setup claim path, while public and invited deployments keep invite-first behavior. - Added a bootstrap-pending setup UX lab covering claim, invite, public, and signed-in access states. - Updated deployment and local development docs for authenticated private/public behavior and the Umbrel-style claim path. - Added server and UI regression tests for private claim, public no-claim, active invite fallback, existing board/no-access flows, and health exposure reporting. - Stabilized PR handoff verification by serializing the aggregate server Vitest workspace run, forcing `NODE_ENV=test`, and relaxing the heartbeat batching test around legitimate recovery follow-up runs. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm vitest --run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest --run server/src/__tests__/health-dev-server-token.test.ts` - `pnpm test:run` - QA validation: PAP-10115 passed browser validation with screenshots for private fresh install claim, active invite versus claim conflict, public invite-only/claim-absent behavior, existing invite fallback, and normal board/no-access flows. - GitHub closeout: issue #2579 and PR #2927 were updated with the accepted direction: adapt the implementation, do not direct-merge #2927 as-is. ## Risks - The claim endpoint must remain private-only and one-time; a regression here could expose admin creation on public deployments. - Existing invite behavior must remain intact for public deployments and installs that already have an active invite. - The stable Vitest harness now serializes the aggregate server workspace group; this is slower, but it avoids DB-backed suite collisions under root workspace mode. > 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`. > > ROADMAP.md checked: this is a scoped deployment bootstrap/access fix and does not duplicate a listed roadmap project. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` for product engineering, implementation, and verification, with tool-enabled local code execution. Paperclip QA browser validation was performed in PAP-10115 by the assigned QA agent; exact adapter model metadata for that QA run is not exposed in this PR 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 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
b7545823be |
[codex] Add document annotations and comments (#6733)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through issues, documents, runs, and durable company-scoped state. > - Issue documents are where agents and operators capture plans, handoffs, and work products. > - Before this change, document collaboration could only happen through whole-document edits and detached issue comments. > - Inline document annotations need stable anchors, revision-aware persistence, and UI affordances that do not break existing document editing. > - This pull request adds company-scoped document annotation threads, comments, anchor snapshots, API routes, and board UI. > - The benefit is that operators and agents can discuss specific document passages without losing context as documents evolve. ## What Changed - Added document annotation tables, schema exports, shared types, validators, anchor hashing, and text-anchor helpers. - Added server-side document annotation services and issue routes for listing, creating, commenting, resolving, and reopening annotation threads. - Included annotation summaries in relevant issue document reads and backup/recovery document workspace behavior. - Added React UI for inline document highlights, comment panels, mobile sheet behavior, deep-link focus, and resolved/open filtering. - Added annotation design artifacts, Storybook coverage, screenshots, and a screenshot helper script. - Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` and renumbered the annotation migration from `0085_old_swarm` to `0091_old_swarm`; the SQL uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards so environments that previously applied the old migration number can safely apply the new one. - Adjusted the new annotation UI tests to use a local async flush helper because this workspace's React 19.2.4 export does not expose `React.act`. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/document-anchors.test.ts server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/document-annotations-service.test.ts ui/src/components/DocumentAnnotationLayer.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx ui/src/lib/document-annotation-hash.test.ts ui/src/lib/document-annotation-selection.test.ts` - Confirmed `git diff --check` passes. - Confirmed no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` files are included in the PR diff. ## Risks - Medium risk: this adds new persisted annotation tables and routes across db/shared/server/ui. - Migration risk is reduced by moving the branch migration to `0091_old_swarm` after upstream `0090_resource_memberships` and keeping the SQL idempotent for old `0085_old_swarm` adopters. - UI risk is mostly around text range anchoring and panel positioning across long documents, folded content, and mobile layouts; the PR includes focused unit coverage and design screenshots. > 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, tool-using software engineering mode. Context window size is not exposed in this Paperclip runtime. ## 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
f0ddd24d61 |
[codex] Show bundled plugins in plugin manager (#6734)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - The plugin system is how Paperclip exposes optional capabilities and integrations without bloating the control plane. > - Operators need the Instance Settings plugin manager to show both installed external plugins and bundled built-in plugins. > - Bundled plugins were available in the server/UI surface but were not represented consistently in the plugin manager list. > - Workspace runtime reuse also needed to stay pinned to the current branch/base so the plugin manager can be validated from the intended checkout. > - This pull request shows bundled plugins in the manager, marks experimental bundled plugins clearly, and tightens runtime/worktree reuse guards. > - The benefit is that operators can discover bundled plugins from the same management screen as installed plugins without stale workspace sessions hiding the latest branch state. ## What Changed - Lists bundled monorepo plugin packages through the plugin routes API, including plugin status and install metadata needed by the UI. - Updates the plugin manager UI/API client to render bundled plugins and display experimental badges based on installed plugin records. - Adds server authorization coverage around plugin routes so board and agent access stay company-scoped. - Guards execution workspace/runtime reuse against stale base refs and defaults new worktrees to the fetched target base. - Expands workspace runtime tests for service reuse, stale workspace prevention, and controlled runtime stops. - Addressed Greptile feedback by respecting `origin/HEAD`, using async cached bundled-plugin discovery, and avoiding duplicated UI experimental plugin lists. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `gh pr checks 6734 --repo paperclipai/paperclip` reports all checks passing on `10e1ba9e0f505637cd913713fb28c2c99ae92011`. - Greptile Review reports 5/5 on `10e1ba9e0f505637cd913713fb28c2c99ae92011`. - Confirmed the branch is rebased onto `public-gh/master` and the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - UI screenshots were not captured in this PR-creation pass because the available local board runtime is authenticated; the visible UI path is covered by the plugin manager code changes and server/API tests above. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches shared plugin listing behavior and workspace runtime reuse, so regressions could affect plugin manager visibility or service reuse across execution workspaces. - No database migrations. - No lockfile or GitHub workflow changes. > 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 GPT-5 Codex, coding-agent workflow with shell/tool use in a local Paperclip worktree. Context window not surfaced by the runtime; reasoning mode not externally reported. ## 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
9aea3e3d35 |
[codex] Add resource membership controls (#6677)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through company-scoped issues, projects, agents, and board-visible workflows. > - The board sidebar and project list are the daily navigation surface for that control plane. > - Users need to keep all projects and agents accessible while hiding resources they have intentionally left from their own sidebar. > - That requires user-scoped resource membership state backed by company-scoped API and database contracts. > - The branch also needed to preserve HTTP worktree login sessions and keep the project list easier to scan after membership grouping. > - This pull request adds resource membership controls, sidebar leave actions, grouped/sortable project listings, and focused tests. > - The benefit is a cleaner personal workspace view without weakening company-scoped access to the underlying project or agent detail pages. ## What Changed - Added `project_memberships` and `agent_memberships` tables with API/shared/server contracts for current-user join/leave state. - Renumbered the membership migration to `0090_resource_memberships` after rebasing onto current `master`, and made it idempotent for anyone who had applied the old branch-local `0087` migration. - Added project and agent sidebar leave actions, plus list filtering that waits for membership state before hiding resources. - Added grouped project listing, project sorting controls, and reserved row subtitle height for cleaner scanning. - Fixed HTTP auth cookie security handling so HTTP worktree sessions can persist. - Updated focused server and UI tests for the new membership, sidebar, project list, and auth behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/better-auth.test.ts server/src/__tests__/resource-memberships-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/Projects.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx ui/src/components/MembershipAction.test.tsx ui/src/components/EntityRow.test.tsx` - Confirmed the branch is rebased on current `origin/master`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. ## Risks - Migration safety: low to medium. The migration now uses `IF NOT EXISTS` / guarded constraints and is numbered after current master migrations, but it should still get CI coverage against fresh databases. - UI behavior: low. Left resources are hidden from sidebar only after membership state loads; direct detail access remains available. - Auth behavior: low. Cookie security is relaxed only for HTTP/private local-style origins where secure cookies would prevent login persistence. > 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 GPT-5 Codex coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git workflow, context window not exposed by runtime. ## 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 - [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 Screenshot note: no browser screenshots were captured in this heartbeat; the UI changes are covered by focused component tests above. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
ece8a51e22 |
[codex] Bundle local branch fixes from PAP-10032 (#6604)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - This branch accumulated multiple already-tested control-plane, adapter runtime, invite, workspace, plugin, and UI quality fixes on the primary Paperclip checkout. > - `origin/master` advanced while those commits were still local, so the branch needed to be preserved and reconciled before review. > - Splitting the branch commit-by-commit against the new base produced overlapping conflicts with recently merged upstream PRs. > - This pull request keeps the remaining branch as one standalone PR because the final diff is 38 files after removing screenshot artifacts, under Greptile's 100-file cap, and can be merged independently after review. > - The benefit is that none of the local work is lost, the branch is now based on current `origin/master`, and reviewers can evaluate the reconciled changes in one place. ## What Changed - Merged the local accumulated branch with current `origin/master` and resolved the invite-flow overlaps from the newer upstream companies query helper. - Preserved the local fixes for invite existing-member behavior, invite link copy fallback, reusable workspace selection, worktree auth, static SPA fallback, markdown wrapping, plugin slot registration, cloud upstream UX/server polish, project sorting, and related tests. - Removed screenshot artifacts from the PR per review request. - Kept the PR under the requested file limit: 38 files changed, with no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` changes. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanyInvites.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InviteLanding.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Projects.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/slots.test.ts ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/invite-accept-existing-member.test.ts server/src/__tests__/static-index-html.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/better-auth.test.ts server/src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - Confirmed `git diff --name-only origin/master...HEAD | wc -l` is `38`. - Confirmed no PR diff entries match `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows/*`, or `screenshots/*`. ## Risks - Medium review risk because this is a bundled rescue PR rather than several narrow feature PRs. - Invite flow and company cache behavior overlapped with newer upstream changes; the merge resolution intentionally keeps the shared `companiesListQueryOptions` helper while preserving local existing-member invite behavior. - Visual review evidence is no longer attached in-repo because screenshots were removed from this PR per review request. > 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 repository tool access, terminal execution, and git/GitHub CLI operations. ## 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 - [x] UI screenshots were intentionally removed from this PR per review request - [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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: CodexCoder <codexcoder@paperclip.local> |
||
|
Aron Prins
|
897cc322c7 |
Improve external agent invite flow (#6183)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Agent creation can happen through local runtimes, managed runtimes, and external agents that onboard through invites. > - The old OpenClaw-oriented invite UX lived under company settings/invites and made a gateway-specific path look like a company access setting. > - That hid the broader bring-your-own-agent flow and forced operators to leave the add-agent modal when adding an external agent. > - This pull request moves external agent invite generation into the add-agent modal and makes the copy agent-oriented instead of OpenClaw-only. > - The benefit is a clearer agent-first onboarding path while company invites stay focused on human access. ## What Changed - Added an external-agent invite branch to the add-agent modal, including a dedicated prompt result view with Back navigation. - Added a shared agent onboarding prompt builder and focused modal coverage for prompt replacement/back navigation. - Removed the agent invite prompt UI from Company Settings and Company Invites, leaving Company Invites focused on human access links and invite history. - Updated the hidden OpenClaw Gateway runtime hint to direct operators to the add-agent invite flow instead of presenting it as a blocked runtime card. - Updated invite/onboarding docs, storybook coverage, and server-side onboarding copy toward generic agent language while preserving existing gateway compatibility. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `FAKE_BIN="$(mktemp -d)/bin"; mkdir -p "$FAKE_BIN"; printf '#!/bin/sh\nexit 1\n' > "$FAKE_BIN/tailscale"; chmod +x "$FAKE_BIN/tailscale"; PATH="$FAKE_BIN:$PATH" pnpm test:run` - `pnpm test:run` without the fake `tailscale` shim was also attempted; it failed only in two pre-existing CLI tailnet fallback tests because this host has a real Tailscale address (`100.125.202.3`) where those tests expect no Tailscale. - Focused confirmation for that host-env issue: `FAKE_BIN=... PATH="$FAKE_BIN:$PATH" pnpm exec vitest run --project paperclipai cli/src/__tests__/network-bind.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts` - Manual UI verification: served UI locally in light mode, opened add-agent modal, generated external agent prompt, verified the generated prompt replaces the form and Back returns to the form. ### Screenshots    ## Risks - Existing OpenClaw gateway compatibility remains, but operators now discover external agent onboarding from the add-agent modal instead of company settings. - Agent invites still appear in the invite history table, so that page may show agent-scoped invite rows even though it no longer creates agent onboarding prompts. - Low migration risk: no schema changes. > 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 Codex desktop; tool-enabled repository, shell, browser, and GitHub workflow. Context window size was not exposed by the runtime. ## 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 - [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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
ad6effa65c |
[codex] Improve runtime and import reliability (#6549)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates autonomous company work through local and hosted runtime surfaces. > - Local embedded Postgres and tenant import/export paths are foundational reliability pieces. > - A runtime failure in either path can stop agents or imports before useful work begins. > - The branch included remaining fixes for embedded native library bootstrap and async tenant import handling. > - This pull request groups those runtime/import reliability changes into one standalone PR. > - The benefit is a more robust local runtime and safer cloud tenant import behavior. ## What Changed - Prepared embedded Postgres native runtime before startup in CLI/server/test entrypoints. - Added embedded Postgres native bootstrap coverage. - Added async tenant import job handling and deferred validation coverage. - Kept the runtime/import changes based directly on current `origin/master` after related upstream PRs had already merged. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/embedded-postgres-native.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability-routes.test.ts` ## Risks - Medium-low: this touches startup/import paths, but the branch is small and covered by targeted tests. - The embedded Postgres change depends on platform-specific native-library behavior, so CI and follow-up checks should still verify supported runners. > 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 GPT-5 Codex via `codex_local`, tool-enabled coding session; exact context window not exposed by this runtime. ## 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 - [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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
e43b392a79 |
[codex] Add local Cloud Upstream sync (#6548)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies. > - Operators need a path to move local company state toward Paperclip Cloud without losing local-first control. > - The Cloud Upstream flow needs API, persistence, CLI, and board UI surfaces that agree on the same manifest/run model. > - The existing branch had the feature work plus UX and error-handling follow-ups. > - This pull request packages the remaining Cloud Upstream sync work into one standalone branch. > - The benefit is an inspectable local-to-cloud sync workflow with preview, conflicts, activation, and captured UX review states. ## What Changed - Added Cloud Upstream shared types, server routes/services, and persisted run schema/migration. - Added Paperclip Cloud CLI sync helpers and local connection storage. - Added the Cloud Upstream board UI, settings entry points, query keys, and UX lab page. - Added preview/activation checklist behavior, redirect handling, manifest-only preview support, friendly errors, in-flight hints, and entity count summaries. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/cloud.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts ui/src/pages/CloudUpstream.test.tsx ui/src/components/CompanySettingsSidebar.test.tsx` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/cloud-upstreams.test.ts` Worktree setup note: the isolated worktree install skipped native sqlite build scripts, so I copied the already-built local sqlite binding from the main checkout before running `server/src/__tests__/cloud-upstreams.test.ts`. The test then passed. ## Risks - Medium: this adds a database migration and a broad feature path across CLI/server/UI. - Merge order: this is the only PR in this split with a DB migration; merge it before any future Cloud Upstream migration follow-up. - Mitigation: the PR is based directly on current `origin/master`, has targeted route/service/UI tests, and keeps the feature behind existing experimental Cloud Sync settings. > 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 GPT-5 Codex via `codex_local`, tool-enabled coding session; exact context window not exposed by this runtime. ## 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 - [x] If this change affects the UI, screenshot artifacts are intentionally omitted per reviewer request - [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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
a1835cfa5e |
[codex] Harden plugin runtime invocation scope (#6547)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through a company-scoped control plane. > - Plugins extend that control plane, but plugin workers still call back into host APIs. > - Those worker-to-host calls need the same company boundary guarantees as normal API routes. > - Plugin action handlers also need authenticated actor context from the host instead of trusting caller-supplied params. > - This pull request hardens plugin bridge/action scope and keeps plugin operation issues out of normal issue surfaces. > - The benefit is safer plugin execution with clearer authorization boundaries and better test coverage. ## What Changed - Added host-owned invocation context plumbing for nested plugin worker calls. - Added actor context to plugin `performAction` calls and test harness helpers. - Enforced company invocation scope on worker-to-host calls and filtered company lists to the active invocation scope. - Extended plugin action route tests for board and agent actor context, spoofed company params, and cross-company rejection. - Extended plugin worker manager coverage for invocation-scope propagation. - Filtered typed and legacy plugin operation issue origins from default issue/inbox lists. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/plugins/sdk/tests/host-client-factory.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-worker-manager.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` Note: embedded Postgres issue-service tests reported host-level Postgres init skip for 47 tests; the non-embedded targeted tests passed. ## Risks - Medium: plugin host authorization paths are sensitive, and external plugins may rely on previously loose company params. - Mitigation: the change only tightens calls when the host attached a company invocation scope and includes explicit tests for board, agent, and nested worker calls. > 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 GPT-5 Codex via `codex_local`, tool-enabled coding session; exact context window not exposed by this runtime. ## 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 - [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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
38c185fb8b |
[codex] Add agent permissions and controls plan (#6386)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies by keeping task ownership, approvals, and operator control inside one control plane. > - Agent permissions and plugin-hosted company settings sit on the boundary between autonomy and governance. > - V1 needs scoped task assignment rules, plugin extension points, and clearer company access surfaces without weakening company boundaries. > - The branch builds the core authorization service, plugin SDK/host APIs, and UI simplifications needed to support those controls. > - Paperclip EE plugin surfaces were intentionally moved out of this core PR per review direction, so this PR now carries only the public core/plugin infrastructure work. > - The latest updates preserve the PAP-9937 branch changes that belong in this PR, remove the `design/` artifacts, and exclude the experimental `plugin-briefs` package. > - Greptile feedback was applied through the authorization/audit paths and the final cleanup commit was re-reviewed at 5/5 with no unresolved Greptile threads. > - The benefit is safer assignment control with extension hooks for richer permission products while preserving simple defaults for normal operators. ## What Changed - Added scoped task-assignment authorization decisions and routed issue/agent assignment mutations through the authorization service. - Added plugin SDK and host APIs for company settings slots, authorization policy/grant management, assignment previews, and bridge invocation scope propagation. - Simplified core company access UI and moved advanced controls behind plugin-provided settings surfaces. - Added retry-now affordances for blocked issue next-step notices. - Added protected-assignment enforcement for persisted agent/project/issue policies, including explicit-grant fallback behavior. - Added incremental principal-access compatibility backfill for active agent memberships and role-default human permission grants. - Added the Markdown code block wrap action fix from the latest branch changes. - Removed `design/` artifacts from the PR and removed `packages/plugins/plugin-briefs` from the final diff. - Addressed Greptile feedback for plugin actor sanitization, legacy membership handling, audit pagination, unknown grant-scope metadata, and startup test mocks. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 2 files passed, 54 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 3 files passed, 62 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-access-authorization-host-services.test.ts server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` -> 3 files passed, 28 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` -> passed. - `git diff --check` -> passed. - `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs` -> passed. - `CI=true pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` -> passed with no lockfile update. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.interaction.test.tsx` -> 1 test passed. - `git ls-files design packages/plugins/plugin-briefs | wc -l` -> 0. - GitHub CI on `40cd83b53` -> all checks passed, merge state `CLEAN`. - Greptile on `40cd83b53` -> 5/5, 102 files reviewed, 0 comments/annotations added, 0 unresolved review threads. - Confirmed the PR diff contains no `design/`, `packages/plugins/plugin-briefs`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, or `.github/workflows` changes. ## Risks - Medium: task assignment authorization paths are behaviorally stricter for protected/private policy data, so existing plugin-authored policies may block assignment until explicit grants or approval flows are configured. - Medium: plugin-host authorization APIs expand the surface area available to trusted plugins and need careful review for company scoping. - Low: startup now performs a principal-access compatibility backfill, but the migration and runtime backfill use conflict-tolerant inserts. > 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, tool-enabled workflow with shell, git, and GitHub CLI access. ## 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
c91a062326 |
[codex] Runtime control-plane fixes (#6380)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through a server-side control plane > - That control plane depends on reliable issue state transitions, plugin lifecycle behavior, import limits, and startup/shutdown handling > - Several small runtime fixes had accumulated on the working branch and were mixed with larger feature work > - Keeping them separate makes the correctness fixes reviewable and mergeable without waiting for cloud-sync UI work > - This pull request groups the server/runtime control-plane fixes into one standalone branch > - The benefit is a tighter, safer runtime baseline for retries, imports, plugin migrations, feedback flushing, and trusted cloud import handling ## What Changed - Fixed updated issue list pagination sorting and scheduled retry comment handling. - Re-applied pending plugin migrations during hot reload and fixed plugin-schema worktree seed restore. - Hardened public tenant DB startup, portable import body limits, trusted cloud import errors, and trusted cloud tenant import mutation access. - Expired stale request confirmations after user comments. - Added feedback export shutdown hardening so database-unavailable flush loops stop cleanly. - Guarded plugin worker `error` event emission when no listener is registered. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` - `npm run install --prefix node_modules/.pnpm/sqlite3@5.1.7/node_modules/sqlite3` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-lifecycle-restart.test.ts server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/body-limits.test.ts server/src/__tests__/feedback-flush-controller.test.ts server/src/__tests__/error-handler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/board-mutation-guard.test.ts packages/db/src/backup-lib.test.ts` initially exposed local setup issues and two 5s test timeouts. - Rerun after local prereq build: `pnpm exec vitest run --testTimeout 15000 server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/feedback-flush-controller.test.ts server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` passed. - Some embedded Postgres-backed tests skipped on this host because local Postgres init was unavailable. ## Risks - Runtime-touching branch: startup/shutdown and issue interaction behavior should be reviewed carefully. - The feedback export change disables repeated flush attempts only for database connection-refused failures; other upload failures still log normally. - The plugin worker error guard avoids process crashes from unhandled EventEmitter errors but may hide errors from code paths that expected an emitted listener. > 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 local shell/git/tool use. Exact hosted model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the local Paperclip adapter runtime. ## 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
f257530537 |
[codex] UI and dev ops quality-of-life (#6384)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip operators spend most of their time scanning the board, inbox, sidebar, and local dev status surfaces > - Small UI and dev-ops frictions make repeated operator workflows feel slower than they need to be > - The working branch contained several independent quality-of-life improvements mixed with larger cloud work > - Grouping these smaller UI/dev-ops changes together keeps review overhead reasonable without merging them into feature PRs > - This pull request collects the operator-facing QoL polish into one standalone branch > - The benefit is a cleaner board navigation and local dev recovery experience without depending on cloud upstream sync ## What Changed - Relaxed forced 44px touch targets for small inline widgets. - Fixed mobile mention menu scrolling and sidebar spacing on touch/mobile layouts. - Synced inbox hover state with j/k selection. - Moved plugin sidebar entries into the Work section. - Added manual dev-server restart action/banner behavior. - Logged plugin bridge 502 causes for better diagnosis. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx ui/src/components/DevRestartBanner.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/dev-server-status.test.ts server/src/__tests__/health-dev-server-token.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts` initially failed only because plugin SDK `dist` was not built in the fresh worktree. - Rerun after build: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts` passed. - The remaining targeted UI/dev-server tests passed on the first post-install run. ## Visual Evidence - Sidebar layout and plugin Work section:  - Inbox/task row selection and hover-state surface:  - Dev restart banner desktop:  - Dev restart banner mobile:  ## Risks - Mostly UI/dev ergonomics with low data risk. - Sidebar and inbox changes touch frequently used navigation surfaces, so visual review on desktop/mobile is still useful. > 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 local shell/git/tool use. Exact hosted model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the local Paperclip adapter runtime. ## 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
d67347be77 |
[codex] Provider vault secrets UX (#6381)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents that need scoped, auditable access to secrets > - Hosted and external deployments need provider vault configuration without exposing secret values in Paperclip metadata > - AWS Secrets Manager vault setup previously required too much manual operator knowledge > - Provider vault discovery and removal belong together as an independent secrets-management improvement > - This pull request adds AWS provider vault discovery/prefill plus vault removal flows > - The benefit is a safer operator path for configuring external secret storage before higher-level cloud workflows depend on it ## What Changed - Added shared validators/types for AWS provider vault discovery payloads and safe provider metadata. - Implemented AWS provider vault discovery preview on the server. - Added provider vault removal service/route behavior. - Added Secrets page UI for discovery prefill, removal messaging, and related rendering coverage. - Added Storybook provider-vault fixtures and captured screenshots for the new UX states. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/secret.test.ts server/src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts ui/src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx` - Result: 4 files passed, 1 embedded Postgres-backed file skipped on this host because local Postgres init was unavailable. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Storybook screenshot capture against `Product/Secrets` on `http://127.0.0.1:60381/iframe.html?id=product-secrets--secrets-inventory&viewMode=story&globals=theme:dark` ## Screenshots Provider vaults tab after this change:  AWS discovery candidate flow:  Provider vault removal confirmation:  ## Risks - Secret provider metadata handling must remain non-sensitive; validators reject credential-bearing Vault URLs and sensitive AWS discovery keys. - AWS discovery depends on deployment credentials being configured correctly outside Paperclip-managed company secrets. > 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 local shell/git/tool use. Exact hosted model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the local Paperclip adapter runtime. ## 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
bfe6369ef5 |
Guard cheap recovery model usage (#6371)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane that coordinates AI-agent work through issues, heartbeats, comments, approvals, and auditable recovery paths. > - The affected subsystem is heartbeat/recovery orchestration, especially the optional cheap model profile used for operational recovery overhead. > - Cheap recovery should repair status and liveness, but it must not become the worker lane that writes deliverables, continues source work, or propagates cheap execution hints into downstream retries. > - The gap was that cheap-profile hints could follow recovery wake contexts and assignment overrides farther than intended, making real work eligible to run on the cheap model. > - This pull request separates status-only cheap recovery from normal source-work continuations, adds route guards for deliverable mutations during cheap status-only runs, and documents the invariant. > - The benefit is safer retry/recovery behavior: cheap runs can clean up control-plane state, while any remaining source work resumes through a normal/original model path. ## What Changed - Added recovery model-profile work classes so status-only recovery carries explicit guard context and normal-model continuations scrub cheap hints. - Updated heartbeat, productivity review, liveness continuation, and recovery service wakeups to request cheap only for bounded status-only recovery work. - Blocked cheap status-only recovery runs from writing issue documents, plans, attachments, work products, or assigning downstream work back to `modelProfile: "cheap"`. - Added/updated server tests for cheap profile propagation, artifact/document guards, route authorization, retry scheduling, and successful-run handoff behavior. - Documented the recovery model-profile lane in `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` and `doc/execution-semantics.md`. - After rebasing onto current `public-gh/master`, stabilized the new `InstanceSidebar` plugin-filter tests so the PR check lane stays green. ## Verification - Local: `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/services/recovery/model-profile-hint.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-document-restore-routes.test.ts` from `server/` - 3 files, 37 tests passed after final edits. - Local: `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` from `server/` - 44 tests passed after rerunning the cleanup-sensitive file alone. - Local: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/InstanceSidebar.test.tsx` - 4 tests passed. - Local: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed. - Local: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed. - PR checks on latest head `6f8c3b1380f5bd872c6f49f6f7188ecf3bb6d263` - all green, including `verify`, build, typecheck, server/general/serialized tests, e2e, Snyk, and policy. - Greptile: pass 3 returned Confidence Score 5/5 with zero unresolved Greptile review threads. ## Risks - Medium risk: recovery behavior is intentionally stricter, so any path that incorrectly relies on cheap recovery to keep doing source work will now need to hand back to a normal-model run. - Low migration risk: no schema changes. - No product UI changes; the UI file touched is a test-only stabilization after rebasing onto current `master`. > 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 coding agent, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool use and local code execution enabled; context window not exposed in this 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 - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A: no product UI changes) - [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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
5071c4c776 |
[codex] Add workspace diff viewer plugin (#6071)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators need to inspect what agents changed inside execution and project workspaces. > - The existing workspace detail views did not provide a first-party rich diff surface for staged, unstaged, head, renamed, binary, oversized, and untracked changes. > - The plugin system is the intended extension point for optional rich UI surfaces. > - This pull request adds a workspace diff plugin plus host services and shared contracts so Changes tabs can render workspace diffs through plugin slots. > - The diff-renderer dependency should stay owned by the plugin package rather than the core UI app. > - The dependency surface must stay aligned with repository PR policy, including intentionally omitting `pnpm-lock.yaml` from the PR. > - The benefit is a more reviewable workspace surface without hard-coding the renderer into every page. ## What Changed - Added `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff`, including diff normalization, plugin manifest/worker/UI entrypoints, and focused plugin tests. - Kept `@pierre/diffs` scoped to `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff`; removed the core UI lab diff-renderer surface and direct UI package dependency. - Added shared workspace diff types and validators, plus plugin SDK surface for workspace diff host services. - Added server workspace diff service support and route coverage for execution/project workspace diff flows. - Wired Execution Workspace and Project Workspace Changes tabs to load the diff plugin, including loading/error fallback behavior. - Added UI tests and fixtures for the Changes tabs and plugin bridge behavior. - Added the new plugin package manifest to the Docker deps stage so PR policy can validate dependency coverage. - Addressed review hardening around empty untracked patches, workspace path exposure, project workspace read capability checks, and default base refs. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff test` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/workspace-diff.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-diff-service.test.ts ui/src/pages/ProjectWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx ui/src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs` - Browser screenshot captured from the local worktree dev server: https://files.catbox.moe/ofdpsp.png - Confirmed branch is rebased onto `public-gh/master`, `.github/workflows/pr.yml` is not included in the PR diff, `ui/package.json` is not included in the PR diff, and `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the PR diff. ## Risks - Medium UI integration risk: the Changes tab depends on the plugin slot and host diff service path. - Medium dependency risk: this adds `@pierre/diffs` in the plugin package, but `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally omitted per packaging instructions because repository automation manages lockfile updates. - Current CI blocker: downstream frozen installs fail until the repository policy path for new plugin package dependencies is chosen. - Diff rendering edge cases are covered for common working-tree and head diff states, but very large repositories may still expose performance limits. - No migrations are included. > 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 class coding model, tool-enabled local execution environment. Exact context window was not exposed by the runtime. ## 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
d734bd43d1 |
[codex] Roll up May 17 branch changes (#6210)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so agent work needs visible ownership, recovery, and operator controls. > - This local branch had accumulated several related control-plane reliability and operator-experience fixes across recovery actions, watchdog folding, model-profile defaults, mentions, markdown editing, plugin launchers, and small UI polish. > - The branch needed to be converted into a PR against the current `origin/master` without losing dirty work or including lockfile/workflow churn. > - The safest standalone shape is a single rollup PR because the recovery/server/UI files overlap heavily across the local commits and splitting would create avoidable conflicts. > - This pull request replays the local branch onto latest `origin/master`, preserves the uncommitted work as logical commits, and adds a Zod 4 validator compatibility fix found during verification. > - The benefit is that the May 17 local branch can be reviewed and merged as one coherent, conflict-free branch under the 100-file Greptile limit. ## What Changed - Rebased the local May 17 branch work onto current `origin/master` in a dedicated worktree. - Preserved and committed previously dirty changes for recovery retry handling, plugin/sidebar launcher polish, and `.herenow` ignores. - Added recovery-action behavior for returning source issues to `todo` when retrying source-scoped recovery. - Included the existing local recovery/liveness/watchdog fold, Codex cheap-profile, markdown/mention, duplicate-agent, and UI polish commits from the branch. - Normalized shared validator `z.record(...)` schemas to explicit string-key records for Zod 4 compatibility. - Confirmed the PR has no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` changes and stays below the 100-file Greptile limit. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `npm run install` in `node_modules/.pnpm/sqlite3@5.1.7/node_modules/sqlite3` to build the local native sqlite3 binding after installing with scripts disabled - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts packages/shared/src/project-mentions.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/lib/duplicate-agent-payload.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` - First pass: 13 files passed with 201 passing tests; 3 server files failed before sqlite3 native binding was built. - After rebuilding sqlite3: `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts`, `server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts`, and `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts` passed/loaded; embedded Postgres tests were skipped by the local host guard. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` ## Risks - Medium risk: this is a broad rollup PR across recovery semantics, server tests, shared validators, and UI surfaces. - Some embedded Postgres tests skipped locally due the host guard, so CI should provide the stronger database-backed signal. - UI changes were covered by component tests, but no browser screenshot was captured in this PR creation pass. - This branch may overlap with existing recovery/liveness PR work; merge this PR independently or restack/close overlapping branches rather than merging duplicate implementations together. > 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, tool-enabled local repository and GitHub workflow, medium reasoning effort. ## 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
03ad5c5bea |
[codex] Add issue document locking (#6009)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through company-scoped issues, comments, and issue documents. > - Issue documents are the durable place where plans, handoffs, and other work artifacts are revised over time. > - Some documents need to be preserved as operator-approved snapshots while agents continue working on the same issue. > - Without document locking, a later board or agent write can overwrite the document key that reviewers expected to remain stable. > - This pull request adds board-managed issue document locks and makes agent writes to locked keys create a derived document instead of mutating the locked document. > - The benefit is safer document handoffs: approved or frozen issue documents stay immutable until the board explicitly unlocks them. ## What Changed - Added `locked_at`, `locked_by_agent_id`, and `locked_by_user_id` document fields plus migration `0085_tranquil_the_executioner.sql`. - Added document lock/unlock service behavior, route endpoints, activity events, and locked-document write protections. - Made agent document writes to locked keys create a new derived key such as `plan-2` rather than overwriting the locked document. - Surfaced lock state through shared issue document types, UI API methods, document header lock controls, and activity formatting. - Added server and UI tests for lock/unlock behavior, locked document immutability, and UI action visibility. - Updated `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` with the V1 document lock contract and endpoints. ## Verification - `git rebase public-gh/master` completed cleanly after committing the branch changes. - `git diff --check` passed before commit. - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/documents-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueDocumentsSection.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueContinuationHandoff.test.tsx ui/src/lib/document-revisions.test.ts` passed: 5 files, 32 tests. ## Risks - Medium risk because this changes the document persistence contract and adds a migration. - The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` and guarded foreign-key creation so it remains safe for users who may have already applied an earlier copy of the migration. - Locked documents intentionally reject board edits/deletes/restores until unlocked; any existing workflows that expected direct overwrite need to unlock first. - Agent writes to locked keys now create derived documents, which may create extra issue documents when agents retry locked writes. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with tool use and local code execution in the Paperclip worktree. ## 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
4142559c37 |
[codex] Add blocked inbox attention view (#5603)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies through company-scoped issues, comments, approvals, and execution workspaces. > - Operators need the Inbox to show not only active work, but also blocked work that may need human or agent attention. > - The existing inbox experience did not have a dedicated blocked-work surface, so blocked tasks were harder to triage and resume deliberately. > - Backend consumers also needed a compact attention signal that distinguishes actionable blockers from covered or waiting blocker states. > - This pull request adds a Blocked Inbox tab backed by issue blocker-attention metadata, shared validators, and UI helpers. > - The benefit is a clearer triage path for stalled or blocked Paperclip work without exposing external wait internals in the operator-facing UI. ## What Changed - Added shared issue blocker-attention types, validators, and exports for the API/UI contract. - Added backend blocker-attention computation and issue route support for blocked inbox data. - Added the Blocked Inbox tab, blocked reason chips, filtering/search UI, responsive layouts, and Storybook stories. - Updated inbox helpers and page behavior so toolbar controls only appear where they apply. - Added coverage for shared validators, server blocker-attention behavior, blocked inbox UI helpers/components, and the Inbox page. - Added a screenshot helper script for the blocked inbox Storybook stories. - Addressed Greptile feedback by making urgency sorting deterministic for null stop times, avoiding full blocked-inbox list enrichment for counts, and hardening the screenshot helper. ## Verification - Rebased the branch cleanly onto `public-gh/master`. - Confirmed the diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - Confirmed the diff does not include database migration files. - Ran `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts ui/src/components/BlockedInboxView.test.tsx ui/src/components/BlockedReasonChip.test.tsx ui/src/lib/blockedInbox.test.ts ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx`. - Ran `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`. - Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is scoped inbox/operator triage work and does not duplicate a listed roadmap feature. - Greptile Review is green on the latest head and all four Greptile review threads are resolved. - GitHub PR checks are green on the latest head: policy, security/snyk, e2e, verify, Canary Dry Run, Greptile Review, and serialized server suites 1/4 through 4/4. ## Risks - Medium review surface because this touches the shared issue contract, server issue services, and the Inbox UI together. - Blocker-attention classification may need product tuning after operators use it on real blocked queues. - UI screenshots were not attached in this PR-opening pass; the branch includes `scripts/screenshot-blocked-inbox.mjs` and Storybook stories for visual capture. > 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 shell, git, GitHub CLI, GitHub connector, and Paperclip API tool use. Reasoning mode: medium. Context window: not exposed by the runtime. ## 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
b947a7d76c |
[codex] Improve local plugin development workflow (#5821)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI-agent companies. > - Plugins are the extension point for adding capabilities without expanding the core product surface. > - Local plugin development needed a tighter CLI-first loop so plugin authors can scaffold, run, install, inspect, and reload plugins without reaching into internal package paths. > - The server plugin install path also needed local-path handling that keeps plugin identity, dashboard routes, and development watchers coherent. > - This pull request adds the CLI scaffold/install workflow, fixes the server and SDK edge cases that blocked that loop, and updates the agent-facing plugin creation skill and docs. > - The benefit is that contributors can develop plugins from local folders with a documented, repeatable happy path. ## What Changed - Added `paperclipai plugin init` coverage and CLI wiring for local plugin scaffolding. - Improved local plugin install handling, plugin key route resolution, dashboard capability behavior, and dev watcher startup/reload behavior. - Fixed plugin SDK worker entrypoint validation for symlinked package layouts. - Added targeted tests for plugin init, server plugin authz/watcher behavior, SDK worker host validation, and the authoring smoke example. - Added a short local plugin development guide and refreshed the plugin authoring guide plus `paperclip-create-plugin` skill instructions. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/create-paperclip-plugin typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project paperclipai cli/src/__tests__/plugin-init.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/plugin-sdk packages/plugins/sdk/tests/worker-rpc-host.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/plugin-dev-watcher.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm --dir packages/plugins/examples/plugin-authoring-smoke-example test` - Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the PR diff. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches plugin install routing, CLI command behavior, and the local development watcher. - Local path plugin installs execute trusted local code by design; the new docs call out that trust boundary. - No database migrations are included. > 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, tool-enabled local shell and git workflow, medium reasoning effort. Context window details were not exposed in this runtime. ## 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 - [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 UI screenshots: not applicable; this PR changes CLI/server/plugin docs and tests, not board UI rendering. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
0808b388ee |
[codex] Add source-scoped recovery actions (#5599)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where work must end with a clear disposition rather than ambiguous agent liveness. > - Recovery currently detects stalled or missing-next-step issues, but source issue recovery can become split across child recovery issues, blockers, and comments. > - That makes it harder for operators and agents to see who owns recovery and what exact action is needed on the original issue. > - Source-scoped recovery actions give the original issue a first-class active recovery state with owner, evidence, wake policy, and resolution outcome. > - This pull request adds the recovery-action data model, backend reconciliation and resolution APIs, and board UI indicators/actions. > - The benefit is clearer stalled-work recovery without losing source issue context or relying on comments as the liveness path. ## What Changed - Added the `issue_recovery_actions` schema, shared types/constants/validators, and an idempotent `0084_issue_recovery_actions` migration ordered after current `master` migrations. - Updated stranded/missing-disposition recovery to create source-scoped recovery actions, wake the recovery owner on the source issue, and avoid locking the source issue for recovery-action wakes. - Added API support for reading active recovery actions on issue detail/list surfaces and resolving them with restored, blocked, cancelled, or false-positive outcomes. - Require blocked recovery resolutions to have an unresolved first-class blocker, and removed the UI shortcut that could mark recovery blocked without a blocker selection path. - Surfaced recovery indicators/actions in the issue UI, blocker notices, active run panels, issue rows, and Storybook coverage. - Updated docs and focused tests for recovery semantics, ownership, races, stale comments, and UI behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 5 files, 72 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering check. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up verification after blocker-resolution guard: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 3 files, 27 tests passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - UI states are available in `ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`; screenshot capture helper is `scripts/screenshot-recovery-card.cjs`. ## Risks - Medium: recovery behavior changes from child recovery issue ownership toward source-scoped actions, so operators may see stalled-work state in new places. - Migration risk is mitigated by using the next migration slot after `master` and making the table/constraints/index creation idempotent for anyone who previously applied the old branch-local `0082_dizzy_master_mold` migration. - Existing child recovery issue paths are still guarded for already-created recovery issues, but new source-scoped flows should be watched in CI and Greptile review. > 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, tool use enabled for shell, Git, GitHub, and local test execution. Context window not exposed by the runtime. ## 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
778e775c35 |
Add secrets provider vaults and remote import (#5429)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies and needs secrets handling to work across local development, hosted operators, and governed agent execution. > - The affected subsystem is the company-scoped secrets control plane: database schema, server services/routes, CLI workflows, and the Secrets settings UI. > - The gap was that secrets were local-only and operators could not manage provider vaults or import existing remote references without exposing plaintext. > - This branch adds provider vault configuration plus an AWS Secrets Manager remote-import path while preserving company boundaries, binding context, and audit trails. > - I kept the PR to a single branch PR, removed unrelated lockfile/package drift, rebased the full branch onto the current `public-gh/master`, and addressed fresh Greptile findings. > - The benefit is a reviewable implementation of provider-backed secrets with focused tests covering provider selection, import conflicts, deleted secret reuse, rotation guards, and AWS signing behavior. ## What Changed - Added provider vault support for company secrets, including provider config storage, default vault handling, health checks, binding usage, access events, and remote import preview/commit. - Added an AWS Secrets Manager provider using SigV4 request signing, bounded request timeouts, namespace guardrails, cached runtime credential resolution, and external-reference linking without plaintext reads. - Added Secrets UI surfaces for vault management and remote import, plus CLI/API documentation for setup and operations. - Stabilized routine webhook secret binding paths and SSH environment-driver fixture bindings discovered during verification. - Addressed Greptile and CI findings: no lockfile/package drift, monotonic migration metadata, disabled-vault default races, soft-deleted secret hiding/recreate behavior, remove behavior with disabled vaults, soft-deleted external-reference re-import, non-active rotation guards, managed-secret soft deletion through PATCH, and per-call AWS SDK credential client churn. - Rebased this branch onto `public-gh/master` at `0e1a5828` and force-pushed with lease to keep this as the single PR for the branch. ## Verification - `git fetch public-gh master` - `git rebase public-gh/master` - `git diff --name-only public-gh/master...HEAD | grep '^pnpm-lock\.yaml$' || true` confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not in the PR diff. - Confirmed migration ordering: master ends at `0081_optimal_dormammu`; this PR adds `0082_dry_vision` and `0083_company_secret_provider_configs`. - Inspected migrations for repeat safety: new tables/indexes use `IF NOT EXISTS`; foreign keys are guarded by `DO $$ ... IF NOT EXISTS`; column additions use `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. - `pnpm test:run` ran the full stable Vitest path before the Greptile follow-up commits; it completed with 3 timing-related failures under parallel load: `codex-local-execute.test.ts`, `cursor-local-execute.test.ts`, and `environment-service.test.ts`. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts src/__tests__/cursor-local-execute.test.ts src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts` passed on targeted rerun (`24/24`). - `pnpm build` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. Vite reported existing chunk-size/dynamic-import warnings. - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`26/26`). - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`39/39`). - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - Captured Storybook screenshots from `ui/storybook-static` for visual review. - Latest PR checks on `5ca3a5cf`: `policy`, serialized server suites 1/4-4/4, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, `security/snyk`, and `Greptile Review` pass; aggregate `verify` is still registering the completed child checks. - Greptile review loop continued through the latest requested pass; all Greptile review threads are resolved and the latest `Greptile Review` check on `5ca3a5cf` passed with 0 comments added. ## Screenshots Before: the provider-vault and remote-import surfaces did not exist on `master`; these are after-state screenshots from the Storybook fixtures.    ## Risks - Migration risk: this adds new secret provider tables and extends existing secret rows. The migrations were checked for monotonic ordering and idempotent guards, but reviewers should still inspect upgrade behavior carefully. - Provider risk: AWS support uses direct SigV4 requests. Automated tests cover signing, request timeouts, vault-config selection, namespace guardrails, pending-version archival, sanitized provider errors, and service-level cleanup paths. A real-vault AWS smoke test remains deployment validation for an operator with AWS credentials rather than an unverified merge blocker in this local branch. - UI risk: the Secrets page and import dialog are large new surfaces; screenshots are included above for reviewer inspection. - Verification risk: the full local stable test command hit parallel-load timing failures, although the exact failed files passed when rerun directly. - Operational risk: remote import intentionally avoids plaintext reads; operators must understand that imported external references resolve at runtime and may fail if AWS permissions change. > 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 with local shell/tool use in the Paperclip worktree. Exact context-window size was not exposed by the runtime. ## 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 - [ ] 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
e400315cbf |
Guard assigned backlog liveness (#5428)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The issue graph and liveness recovery system decide whether assigned work is executable or parked > - Assigned issues created without an explicit status could silently land in backlog, making parents look blocked with no productive wake path > - The server, shared validators, recovery analysis, and UI all need to agree on that execution semantic > - This pull request makes assigned issue creation default to `todo`, flags assigned backlog blockers, and surfaces the state in the board > - The benefit is that parked assigned work becomes intentional and visible instead of creating silent liveness stalls ## What Changed - Adds contract tests for assigned issue creation defaults. - Defaults assigned issue creation to `todo` when status is omitted while preserving explicit `backlog` parking. - Exposes `resolveCreateIssueStatusDefault` through shared validators. - Teaches liveness/blocker attention paths to distinguish assigned backlog blockers. - Adds UI notices, row/header badges, and issue detail safeguards for assigned backlog blockers. - Adds Storybook fixtures and execution-semantics documentation for the assigned-backlog behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-assigned-backlog-contract-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueAssignedBacklogNotice.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx` — 50 passed, 23 skipped. - Skipped tests were embedded Postgres suites on this host with the repo skip message: `Postgres init script exited with code null. Please check the logs for extra info. The data directory might already exist.` - Pairwise merge check against the issue-controls PR branch completed without conflicts via `git merge --no-commit --no-ff` in a temporary worktree. - Screenshots for assigned-backlog UI states: [light](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-light.png), [dark](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-dark.png). - Follow-up checks: `pnpm --filter /ui typecheck`; `pnpm --filter /mcp-server build`; `pnpm --filter /mcp-server test`; `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`; focused UI component tests. - Remote PR checks on head `6300b3c`: policy, verify, serialized server shards 1/4-4/4, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Greptile Review, and Snyk all passed. ## Risks - Medium: changes status defaulting for assigned issue creation when the caller omits status. Explicit `backlog` remains supported, and server/shared tests cover both paths. - Medium: liveness classification changes can affect blocker attention labels; focused service and UI tests cover the new assigned-backlog state. > 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 coding agent, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool-enabled Paperclip heartbeat environment. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
772fc92619 |
Add issue controls and retry-now recovery (#5426)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Issue operators need clear controls for execution settings, model overrides, and recovery retries > - Existing issue properties hid useful adapter override state and did not expose a board-triggered retry for scheduled heartbeat recovery > - Scheduled retries also need to respect the same safety gates as normal execution instead of bypassing budget, review, pause, dependency, or terminal-state checks > - This pull request adds the issue property controls and retry-now surfaces together because they share the issue details/properties UI > - The benefit is that operators can inspect and adjust issue execution settings and safely trigger pending scheduled recovery without hidden control-plane behavior ## What Changed - Adds editable issue assignee model override controls in `IssueProperties`, with focused coverage. - Removes the stale workspace tasks link from issue properties. - Adds a scheduled retry `retry-now` backend path and shared response types. - Adds main-pane and properties-pane scheduled retry UI, backed by a shared `useRetryNowMutation` hook. - Adds suppression coverage for budget hard stops, review participant changes, subtree pause holds, unresolved blockers, terminal issues, and company scoping. - Updates the `IssueProperties` test harness with toast actions required by the retry-now hook. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueScheduledRetryCard.test.tsx` — 31 passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-scheduled-retry-routes.test.ts` — exited 0, but this host skipped the embedded Postgres route tests with: `Postgres init script exited with code null. Please check the logs for extra info. The data directory might already exist.` - Pairwise merge check against the assigned-backlog PR branch completed without conflicts via `git merge --no-commit --no-ff` in a temporary worktree. ### Visual verification screenshots Storybook story: `Product/Issue Scheduled retry surfaces / ScheduledRetrySurfaces`.   ## Risks - Medium: this touches issue execution/retry behavior, so CI should run the embedded Postgres route tests on a host that can initialize Postgres. - Low-to-medium UI risk around duplicated retry-now entry points; both surfaces share one mutation hook to keep behavior consistent. > 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 coding agent, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool-enabled Paperclip heartbeat environment. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
d0e9cc76f2 |
Show workspace changes and stale notices in issue threads (#5356)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The issue thread is the operator's durable audit trail for what changed and why > - Workspace changes and stale disposition notices need to be visible in that same timeline without noisy or misleading rendering > - The local branch already contained backend activity details, timeline conversion, and UI rendering work for those events > - This pull request isolates the issue-thread activity work into a standalone branch against `origin/master` > - The benefit is a focused audit-trail PR that can merge independently of the sidebar/operator UI polish branch ## What Changed - Adds readable workspace-change activity details to issue update activity events. - Surfaces workspace-change events in issue chat/timeline rendering. - Makes the existing issue comment migration idempotent. - Folds and renders stale disposition notices inline so they match activity-log styling and spacing. - Adds focused route, timeline, and issue-thread system notice coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-activity-events-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-timeline-events.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx` — 3 files passed, 22 tests passed. - Confirmed the PR changes 9 files and does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-closed-workspace-routes.test.ts` — 1 file passed, 4 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-activity-events-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-timeline-events.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` — 5 files passed, 54 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` after adding the Storybook screenshot fixture. - Captured Storybook screenshots for the new UI rendering paths: - Collapsed stale notice + workspace-change row: `docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5356/issue-thread-notices-collapsed.png` - Expanded stale notice details: `docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5356/issue-thread-notices-expanded.png` ### Screenshots Collapsed stale notice with workspace-change row:  Expanded stale notice details:  ## Risks - Moderate risk: this touches issue activity serialization and issue-thread rendering, both of which are central operator surfaces. - Migration risk is low: the only migration change makes an existing migration idempotent. - No new migrations are introduced, so there is no cross-PR migration ordering requirement. > 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, shell/tool-use enabled, used to split the existing branch, verify the isolated PR branch, and create this PR. ## 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
68f69975a4 |
Harden control-plane safety and issue identifiers (#5292)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip relies on issue identifiers, execution policies, and agent heartbeat rules to keep autonomous work auditable. > - Safety checks need to reject ambiguous agent handoffs, and identifier parsing needs to support Cloud tenant prefixes. > - Agent instructions also need to make final-disposition rules explicit so work does not stall in vague states. > - This pull request isolates backend correctness and governance hardening from the UI and recovery-system-notice branches. > - The benefit is safer in-review transitions, better identifier compatibility, and clearer agent operating contracts. ## What Changed - Fixed run-aware confirmation ordering and interrupted-run state cleanup. - Added Cloud tenant identity bootstrap and alphanumeric issue identifier support across shared parsing and server routes. - Guarded agent-authored `in_review` updates unless a real review path exists. - Tightened heartbeat disposition instructions in adapter utilities/default AGENTS/Paperclip skill. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-references.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-identifier-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` initially had the first execution-policy test hit Vitest's 5s timeout under the parallel bundle while the rest passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts --testTimeout=20000` passed with 10/10 tests. - Follow-up: `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` passed. - Follow-up: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - Follow-up: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts` passed. - Follow-up: `pnpm vitest run ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-reference.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-timeline-events.test.ts` passed. ## Risks - Medium control-plane risk: in-review update validation changes agent behavior. The error message is explicit and tests cover allowed review paths. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use. ## 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 - [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> |
