678 Commits

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
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>	2026-06-05 18:11:05 -05:00
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>	2026-06-05 16:48:02 -05:00
Dotta	b2a33d0184	[codex] Filter document artifacts from issue outputs (#7608) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue detail pages promote certain artifact work products into the dedicated Output surface while also listing raw attachments below > - Document-like artifacts such as plan markdown can currently be promoted like binary outputs, which makes the same work product story look like both an output and a document/attachment > - The output surface should stay focused on inspectable generated media, archives, PDFs, WebAssembly, SVG/images, and true binary deliverables while document-like artifacts remain in the document or attachment flow > - This pull request filters document-like artifact metadata out of the Output section and avoids duplicating the attachments that back promoted outputs > - The benefit is a cleaner issue detail page where plans and markdown reports do not appear as binary outputs, while real output files still get highlighted ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #7609 Refs PAP-10354 Refs PAP-10369 ## What Changed - Added output MIME-type normalization and eligibility checks for issue artifact work products. - Filtered markdown, text, JSON, XML, CSV, YAML, source-like files, and generic binary artifacts with document-like filenames out of promoted issue outputs. - Kept video, image including SVG, PDF, ZIP, WebAssembly, and true binary artifacts eligible for the Output section. - Hid attachments that back promoted outputs while leaving filtered document-like artifact attachments visible. - Preserved the full image attachment set for chat image gallery lookup even when promoted image outputs are hidden from the attachment list. - Added focused tests for output eligibility, glyph labeling, output promotion, attachment filtering, gallery image preservation, and the output section render behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-output.test.ts ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx ui/src/components/issue-output/IssueOutputSection.test.tsx` - GitHub PR checks are green on `7d1b80f9702f20ab86cc502bffce599b13f1b088`. - Greptile confidence score is 5/5 and both Greptile review threads are resolved. ## Risks - Low risk. The change only affects UI classification of Paperclip artifact work products. The main behavioral risk is an uncommon text-like generated artifact no longer appearing in the Output section; it remains available through the normal attachment/document surfaces. > 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 Paperclip CodexCoder, with repository tool use and local command 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 - [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>	2026-06-05 14:40:20 -05:00
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>	2026-06-05 12:55:49 -05:00
Dotta	3657854e5e	Merge pull request #7554 from paperclipai/codex/pap-10343-comment-redaction ... [codex] Redact deleted issue comments	2026-06-05 05:32:08 -10:00
Dotta	1afa337841	Address Greptile deleted-comment feedback ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-05 03:43:12 +00:00
Dotta	af0c43b205	Address operator QoL review feedback	2026-06-05 03:40:46 +00:00
Dotta	fb13e1f6a9	Hide archived routines from routines page	2026-06-05 03:28:07 +00:00
Dotta	ed941ec089	Default routines view by project ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-05 03:28:07 +00:00
Dotta	6c46f11f89	Preserve experimental settings with retired flags ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-05 03:28:07 +00:00
Dotta	7f70759e61	Redact deleted issue comments	2026-06-05 03:20:46 +00:00
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>	2026-06-04 09:59:22 -07:00
Dotta	a18776c627	Narrow IssueDetail hook-order warning assertion ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-01 22:08:39 +00:00
Dotta	63a2b5ba1c	Fix attachment preview test act helpers	2026-06-01 21:48:43 +00:00
Dotta	e86d000c7b	Render rich issue attachment previews ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-01 21:45:27 +00:00
Dotta	96d266109b	Add issue Output UI for artifact playback (PAP-10168) ... Surface attachment-backed artifact work products as a first-class Output section on the issue detail page so cloud users can watch and download agent-generated videos without host filesystem access. - ui/src/lib/issue-output.ts: formatBytes/formatDuration/getOutputFileGlyph helpers + getIssueOutputs selector that validates the Phase-2 attachment artifact metadata contract and tolerates malformed metadata (degraded). - issue-output components: IssueOutputSection, OutputPrimaryCard (native <video>/image/generic), OutputRow, OutputVideoPlayer, OutputFileTile. - IssueDetail: fetch work products and render the Output section between Documents and Attachments; reuse formatBytes in the attachments list. - DesignGuide: showcase multiple-output, degraded, and empty states. - Focused tests for video output, empty state, multiple outputs, and failed attachment metadata (15 tests). Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-30 20:40:35 +00:00
Devin Foley	aea35fe695	exe.dev config UX: advanced-options disclosure, form-default fix, SSH key handling (PAPA-407) (#7025) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents and provisions sandboxed execution environments for them; one of those provisioners is the exe.dev plugin, which runs each agent inside a long-lived VM reached over SSH. > - The instance-config form for that plugin is rendered generically by `JsonSchemaForm` from the plugin's `instanceConfigSchema`, so any UX problem with the form is split between the shared form component and the plugin's schema/runtime code. > - Users coming in cold hit a 12-field flat config they couldn't reason about (PAPA-407), a form that silently submitted `cpu: 0` for untouched optional fields (PAPA-407 root cause), a `sshPrivateKey` textarea that truncated RSA-4096 keys at 4096 chars (PAPA-449), a save flow that accepted clearly-malformed keys and only blew up at lease time with raw SSH stderr (PAPA-450, PAPA-451), and a manifest that didn't distinguish "essential" from "advanced" knobs (PAPA-410 / PAPA-411 — duplicate sub-issues with identical scope; PAPA-418 reconciliation kept PAPA-410 canonical). > - These problems all point at the same surface (exe.dev sandbox config) and are tightly coupled in code — PAPA-449/450/451 patch fields that PAPA-410/411 introduce — so they get reviewed together. > - This pull request lands the shared-form changes (advanced-options disclosure, optional-scalar defaults) and the exe.dev-specific changes (manifest restructure, longer `maxLength`, stderr translation, save-time key validation) as five focused commits stacked on `master`. > - The benefit is a config form that defaults to the two fields a new user actually needs (API key + SSH private key) with a collapsible disclosure for the rest, no silent truncation or zero-default submissions, and SSH key problems surfaced at save time with actionable messages instead of cryptic post-provision failures. ## What Changed - **JsonSchemaForm advanced-options disclosure** (PAPA-410, PAPA-411 — same scope, see note above): adds `x-paperclip-advanced` / `x-paperclip-group` schema annotations and renders flagged fields behind a collapsible "Advanced options" disclosure that auto-opens when a hidden field has a validation error. Exe.dev manifest is restructured to use the new annotations, so essentials (`apiKey`, `sshPrivateKey`) show by default while the long tail of optional knobs is grouped under "SSH access" / "VM resources" / "More options" headings. - **Omit optional scalar defaults** (PAPA-407): `getDefaultForSchema` no longer materialises `0` / `""` for optional `number`/`integer`/`string`/`secret-ref` fields without an explicit `default`. Object recursion drops properties whose default is `undefined`. Fields that declare a `default` (e.g. `sshPort: 22`) still round-trip. Adds a regression test against `getDefaultValues`. - **Raise `sshPrivateKey` `maxLength`** (PAPA-449): bumps the exe.dev manifest cap from 4096 to 8192 so RSA-4096 OpenSSH private keys (which can exceed 4 KB with comments/metadata) aren't silently truncated at submit. - **Translate `invalid format` SSH stderr** (PAPA-450): `formatSshFailure` now recognises `Load key … invalid format` in combined stderr/stdout and returns a specific message naming the key-format problem ("isn't an OpenSSH/PEM private key — confirm the secret starts with `-----BEGIN … PRIVATE KEY-----` and isn't the `.pub` or a PuTTY `.ppk` export") instead of dumping the raw stderr. - **Save-time SSH key validation** (PAPA-451): `onEnvironmentValidateConfig` inline-parses `sshPrivateKey` and rejects common failure modes — pasted public keys, PuTTY `.ppk` format, missing `-----END-----` footer, non-base64 body — so the form surfaces an inline error before any VM is provisioned. Secret-ref bindings (UUIDs) are still passed through unchanged. ## Verification CI gates (`pnpm typecheck`, `pnpm test`, the targeted vitest suites below) all pass. Run locally: ```bash # Shared form pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/JsonSchemaForm # 9 tests pass — includes the new "omits optional scalar fields" regression # and the three advanced-options-disclosure tests. # exe.dev plugin cd packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/exe-dev && pnpm test # 32 tests pass — includes the new sshPrivateKey-validation cases # and the new "invalid format" stderr-translation case. ``` Manual smoke (after reinstalling the plugin so the DB manifest refreshes): 1. Open the exe.dev environment config page. **Default view shows API Key + SSH Private Key only**, with an "Advanced options" disclosure for everything else (PAPA-410 / PAPA-411). 2. Paste a `.pub` file's contents into SSH Private Key, click Save. **Inline error** rejecting the wrong-format key (PAPA-451). 3. Re-paste a valid OpenSSH/PEM private key longer than 4096 bytes — saves cleanly (PAPA-449). 4. Save the form with everything optional left blank — server no longer rejects with `"cpu must be greater than 0 when provided"` (PAPA-407). 5. Force a bad key through via a stored secret-ref binding and lease a VM — failure message names the key-format problem instead of dumping raw SSH stderr (PAPA-450). ## Risks - **PAPA-410 / PAPA-411 manifest restructure** is the largest surface here. Schemas using `x-paperclip-*` extensions are forward-compatible with stricter JSON Schema validators (extensions are ignored by default), and the form gracefully renders a flat layout when no field opts in. - **PAPA-407** changes form-default behaviour: optional scalar fields that previously round-tripped as `""` / `0` will now be `undefined` and absent from the submitted payload. Downstream consumers that expected the empty-string/zero shape need to treat the field as optional. Spot-checked the existing exe.dev driver — it already uses `parseOptionalString` / `parseOptionalInteger`, which treat missing fields as `null` rather than `0`/`""`. - **PAPA-451** adds a save-time check, so a previously-saved-but-malformed `sshPrivateKey` raw value will now fail to re-save. Bound secret-refs are unaffected, matching how the user reaches the bad-key state today (via the secrets picker). - **PAPA-449** simply raises a cap; no semantic risk. - **PAPA-450** only kicks in on the "invalid format" code path; existing onboarding-marker branch is untouched. ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic - Model: Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`) - Capabilities used: code reading, code editing, test execution, git/PR mechanics, Paperclip API for issue coordination ## Checklist - [x] PR body sections present (Thinking Path, What Changed, Verification, Risks, Model Used, Checklist) - [x] Unit tests added for the new behaviours (JsonSchemaForm default-value omission + advanced disclosure; exe.dev plugin validation + stderr translation) - [x] Existing tests still pass locally (`vitest run` on both packages) - [x] No raw secrets, IP addresses, or machine-local config in commits or PR body - [x] Commits are atomic per linked issue (PAPA-410 / PAPA-411, PAPA-407, PAPA-449, PAPA-450, PAPA-451) - [x] Branch is up-to-date with `origin/master` --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-29 18:19:37 -07:00
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>	2026-05-28 23:30:18 -07:00
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>	2026-05-28 07:33:51 -10:00
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>	2026-05-27 21:15:01 -10:00
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>	2026-05-26 06:41:23 -07:00
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>	2026-05-26 07:32:45 -06:00
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>	2026-05-25 13:12:41 -05:00
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>	2026-05-25 07:25:26 -05:00
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	2026-05-23 09:09:40 -05:00
Aron Prins	e85ff094ec	fix(ui): invite page goes blank from companies query-key collision (#6433) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies; humans operate the board through the React UI. > - The board gates company access via `CompanyProvider` (CompanyContext) and onboards new humans through the invite landing page at `/invite/:token`. > - Reported symptom: opening an invite link and signing in works, but the page then renders completely blank (black in dark mode). > - End-to-end browser testing reproduced a client-side crash: `companiesQuery.data?.some is not a function` and `Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'filter')`. > - Root cause: `CompanyProvider` and `InviteLandingPage` both use the React Query key `["companies"]` but return **different shapes** — `{ companies, unauthorized }` vs a bare `Company[]` — so they silently corrupt the shared cache entry; whichever component reads the other's shape calls `.some()`/`.filter()` on the wrong type and throws, unmounting the tree. > - Owners never hit it (they never mount the invite page); only invitees landing on `/invite/:token` crash. > - This PR unifies the `["companies"]` query into a single shared definition so the cache entry always has one shape and the two consumers can't drift apart again. > - The benefit is a working invite/onboarding flow and removal of a whole class of cache-shape bugs on this key. ## What Changed - Add `ui/src/api/companies-query.ts` exporting a single shared `companiesListQueryOptions` (and `CompanyListResult`) — one `queryKey` + one `queryFn` that always returns the wrapped `{ companies, unauthorized }` shape, documented with the shared-cache contract. - `ui/src/context/CompanyContext.tsx` now uses `useQuery(companiesListQueryOptions)` instead of an inline copy of that query. - `ui/src/pages/InviteLanding.tsx` uses the same `companiesListQueryOptions` (with its own `enabled` gate), reads `companiesQuery.data?.companies` for the membership checks, and uses `queryClient.fetchQuery(companiesListQueryOptions)` in the post-auth path — so it reads and writes the identical shape. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean. - `vitest run src/pages/InviteLanding.test.tsx src/context/CompanyContext.test.tsx` — 17/17 pass, unchanged. - Manual end-to-end via a real browser against a LAN-exposed authenticated instance: - Owner creates an Owner-role invite. - New user opens the link and registers — **the "awaiting approval" screen renders** (previously blank), `POST /api/invites/:token/accept` returns `202`, no console errors. - Owner approves at Company Settings → Access (`200`); invitee becomes an active member. - Invitee signs in — full board loads; smoke test of dashboard / issues / inbox / routines / goals / company settings — all render, zero `pageerror`s. - Before: invite page `#root` empty after sign-in (blank/black). After: awaiting-approval panel renders. (Screenshots available on request.) ## Risks - Low. `CompanyProvider`'s query behavior is unchanged (same `queryFn` logic, just extracted into a shared module). `InviteLandingPage` now reads the same shape it writes. No API, schema, or migration changes. Existing tests pass unchanged. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-opus-4-7` (Opus 4.7), 1M-context, extended thinking + tool use; driving Claude Code with browser automation for end-to-end reproduction and verification. ## 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 - [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable (existing InviteLanding/CompanyContext tests cover the touched code and pass; a cross-provider regression test that mounts both consumers is a sensible follow-up) - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (described textually above; this is a crash/blank-page fix, screenshots available on request) - [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>	2026-05-22 15:28:49 -05:00
Dotta	90117827eb	[codex] Polish board UI mobile flows (#6550) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the board UI and control plane for supervising AI-agent companies. > - Operators repeatedly use mobile navigation, issue creation, inbox scanning, and markdown reading surfaces. > - Small layout and interaction rough edges add friction to those high-frequency workflows. > - The branch included a set of related board UI polish changes that were too small to review as many separate PRs. > - This pull request groups the remaining mobile/navigation/markdown polish into one standalone branch. > - The benefit is smoother board operation without mixing in unrelated backend feature work. ## What Changed - Tightened company settings navigation behavior on mobile. - Fixed mobile new issue dialog height and moved issue priority into the overflow controls on small screens. - Restored browser controls for home-screen app mode. - Fixed plugin-route sidebar selection on nested page loads. - Added markdown preformatted-block wrapping controls and coverage. - Kept updated issue list pages sorted by updated time in the board UI. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/Layout.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.wrap.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/components/access/CompanySettingsNav.test.tsx ui/src/lib/pwa-install-mode.test.ts ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` The targeted UI tests passed. React emitted existing act-wrapping warnings in a few test files, but there were no test failures. ## Risks - Medium-low: changes span several UI surfaces, but they are mostly layout/interaction polish with targeted component tests. - Visual screenshots are not newly captured in this split PR; follow-up review should include browser/visual QA before marking ready. > 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-22 10:13:47 -05:00
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	2026-05-22 09:56:22 -05:00
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>	2026-05-22 08:12:52 -05:00
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>	2026-05-19 15:52:39 -05:00
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>	2026-05-19 15:50:23 -05:00
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>	2026-05-18 08:50:06 -05:00
Devin Foley	734385102c	Fix new secret form textarea overflow (PAPA-348) (#6222) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Operators manage per-company secrets through the Secrets page in the web UI > - A long secret value pasted into the "New secret" textarea blew out the form's width, which pushed the Create/Cancel buttons off-screen and made the form unusable > - Root cause: the shadcn `Textarea` primitive sets `w-full` but does not constrain `min-width`, so a flex parent honors the textarea's intrinsic content width when a long unbreakable string is present > - This pull request adds `min-w-0 max-w-full` to the shared `Textarea` primitive and `min-w-0 overflow-x-hidden break-all` on the secret-value usage so a long token wraps inside the form bounds > - The benefit is the Create/Cancel buttons stay reachable regardless of pasted token length, and every other `Textarea` consumer also gets the flexbox-friendly width constraint ## What Changed - `ui/src/components/ui/textarea.tsx`: added `min-w-0 max-w-full` to the base shadcn `Textarea` so it cannot exceed its flex parent - `ui/src/pages/Secrets.tsx`: added `min-w-0 overflow-x-hidden break-all` on the new-secret value `Textarea` so long opaque tokens wrap instead of pushing the form - `ui/src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx`: new regression test that opens the New Secret dialog and asserts the value textarea carries the width-constraint classes ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx` — 3/3 pass - Manual: open the Secrets page, click "New secret", paste a long unbroken string (e.g. a 500-char token) into the value field. The form stays within its dialog and the Create/Cancel buttons remain in view. Before: <img width="1772" height="1432" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/cb31a290-f82a-41dc-9346-91d18cbb5911" /> After: <img width="672" height="734" alt="Screenshot 2026-05-17 at 5 39 38 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a08800c2-b09b-43be-b0e8-114d9149b8f5" /> After: the value field wraps with `break-all` inside the dialog; Create/Cancel stay clickable. Covered by the new render test which asserts `min-w-0`, `overflow-x-hidden`, and `break-all` are present on `#new-secret-value`. ## Risks - Low risk. The base `Textarea` change adds `min-w-0 max-w-full`, which only affects layouts where a textarea was previously allowed to grow past its parent — those cases were already buggy. `break-all` on the secret-value textarea is the right behavior for opaque tokens; it would be wrong for prose, but this field is explicitly a secret token. ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic Claude - Model: claude-opus-4-7 (Opus 4.7) - Mode: standard Claude Code agent, 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 - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-05-17 17:54:15 -07:00
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>	2026-05-17 17:15:06 -05:00
Dotta	705c1b8d81	[codex] Add routine env secrets support (#6212) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Scheduled routines are the control-plane path for recurring agent work. > - Routines already had dispatch/history, but their runtime environment did not carry routine-owned secret bindings through execution. > - Operators need routine-specific secrets that can override project/agent env without exposing secret values in history, logs, or access events. > - This pull request adds the routine env runtime contract, wires it into execution, and makes the routine UI/history surfaces show safe secret metadata. > - The benefit is that routine executions can use scoped secret refs predictably while preserving company boundaries and auditability. ## What Changed - Added routine env persistence/runtime support, including `routines.env`, `routine_runs.routine_revision_id`, revision snapshots, and idempotent migration `0086_routine_env_runtime_contract`. - Resolved routine env during heartbeat adapter config assembly with precedence `agent < project < routine` and secret access events recorded against the routine consumer. - Added secret binding synchronization for routine create/update/restore flows and guarded cross-company, missing, disabled, and deleted secret cases. - Added a Secrets tab to routine detail, env/secret history diff rendering, and Storybook coverage for the new UI states. - Added server/UI regression tests, including an embedded-Postgres QA path for routine secret execution and restore behavior. - Updated implementation/database docs for routine env and secret-binding behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` after rebasing onto `public-gh/master` to refresh workspace links for the newly-added upstream Grok adapter package. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-project-env.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/qa-routine-secrets-e2e.test.ts ui/src/components/RoutineHistoryTab.test.tsx` passed: 5 files, 92 tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed across the workspace. - `pnpm build` passed. Vite emitted the existing large-chunk/dynamic-import warnings. - UI screenshots were captured locally during QA in `artifacts/pap-9521/` and `artifacts/pap-9522/`; generated screenshots are not committed to avoid adding binary artifacts to the repo. ## Risks - Migration risk is limited by `IF NOT EXISTS` guards for the new columns, FK, and index, and the migration is ordered as `0086` immediately after upstream `0085`. - Runtime behavior changes env precedence for routine executions by adding routine env as the highest-precedence layer; tests cover agent/project/routine precedence. - Secret handling is security-sensitive; tests cover value-free manifests/events/errors, disabled/missing/deleted secrets, and cross-company rejection. - UI history now renders routine env/secret diffs; tests and Storybook stories cover the main rendering paths. > 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/tool use and 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 - [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>	2026-05-17 16:30:34 -05:00
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>	2026-05-15 08:54:55 -05:00
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>	2026-05-13 16:41:36 -05:00
Dotta	012a738729	Add ordered sub-issue navigation (#5938) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through company-scoped issues, comments, and execution context. > - The issue detail page is the board surface where operators and agents inspect a task in its parent/child workflow. > - Ordered sub-issues need a low-friction way to move through work without returning to the parent list after every issue. > - Existing issue detail navigation only covered sibling transitions and did not continue into a parent issue's first ordered child. > - This pull request adds ordered previous/next navigation for issue detail views and extends it to continue from a parent or last sibling into the first direct child. > - The benefit is a smoother review/execution path through hierarchical work while preserving hidden issue filtering and dependency-aware ordering. ## What Changed - Added `IssueSiblingNavigation` and route-state handling so issue detail footers can link to previous/next ordered issues. - Extended sub-issue ordering helpers to build navigation from siblings plus direct children, including root-parent and last-sibling-to-first-child cases. - Added page, component, and library tests for ordered sibling navigation, child fallback navigation, hidden issues, and link rendering. - Fixed the quicklook blur/click race Greptile found by deferring close until after portaled link clicks can complete, with a regression test. - Polished the navigation landmark label so it remains accurate when the next target is a direct child rather than a sibling. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueLinkQuicklook.test.tsx src/lib/issue-detail-subissues.test.ts src/components/IssueSiblingNavigation.test.tsx src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx --config vitest.config.ts` from `ui/` - 31 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed. - `git diff --check` - passed. - GitHub PR checks on latest head `34046be2` - passed: Greptile Review, verify, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, Snyk, and serialized server shards. - Screenshots: not captured in this heartbeat; this PR is a draft and the changed states are covered by focused component/page tests. ## Risks - Low risk; this is a UI navigation addition with no database or API contract changes. - The main behavioral risk is navigation ordering drift if `workflowSort` expectations change later. - The IssueDetail navigation now waits for child issue loading, which avoids stale child fallback links but can delay footer navigation briefly while data loads. > 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 repository tool use and shell 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 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>	2026-05-13 15:43:51 -05:00
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>	2026-05-12 09:37:15 -05:00
Dotta	8af38fb054	Revert "fix(ui): prevent lossy cron rewrites + redesign routine triggers tab" (#5725) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through visible, governable task and routine workflows. > - Routines are the recurring-work surface where operators configure schedules, runs, and activity. > - PR #3569 moved routine operational tabs into the right-hand properties panel while also redesigning the routine trigger editor. > - The current product request is to remove that routine properties right-tab change for now and come back to it later. > - The cleanest way to do that is a direct revert of #3569 on top of current `master`, which already includes the #5703 revert. > - This pull request restores the pre-#3569 routine trigger/detail behavior and removes the right-tab properties-panel routine layout. > - The benefit is a simple, reviewable rollback with no schema or API changes. ## What Changed - Reverted #3569: `fix(ui): prevent lossy cron rewrites + redesign routine triggers tab`. - Restored the previous `RoutineDetail` inline tabs and trigger editing flow. - Restored the earlier `ScheduleEditor` implementation. - Removed the UI components and tests introduced by #3569: `ConfirmDialog`, `TriggerDialog`, `TriggerListCard`, and `ScheduleEditor.test.ts`. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx ui/src/components/RoutineHistoryTab.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` Notes: - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` was run in the clean worktree before verification. It completed with known workspace bin-link warnings for `paperclip-plugin-dev-server` because the plugin SDK `dist/dev-cli.js` has not been built in that fresh worktree. - `Routines.test.tsx` emitted existing Radix dialog accessibility warnings during the test run; the tests passed. ### Screenshots This is a direct revert of #3569. The visual state after this PR corresponds to the old screenshot from #3569, and the state being removed corresponds to the new/right-panel screenshots from #3569. | Before this revert | After this revert | | --- | --- | | <img width="1410" height="1325" alt="routine-triggers-before-this-revert" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d70dd35b-e72f-4fc6-bb21-be9b0d92b3b1" /> | <img width="721" height="707" alt="routine-triggers-after-this-revert" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/260bb682-32cb-4dff-b038-d55e45824b04" /> | Right-hand properties panel state removed by this revert: <img width="1409" height="830" alt="routine-properties-panel-removed" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f1d42f07-7cd3-4614-8e93-5b585affd4bf" /> ## Risks - Low technical risk: this is a clean Git revert of a UI-only PR. - Product risk: #3569 also fixed lossy cron editing and added broader schedule presets, so this rollback intentionally removes those improvements along with the right-tab routine layout. - Follow-up risk: if we want only the schedule-editor fixes back later, they should be reintroduced separately from the routine properties-panel layout. > 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 with local shell and GitHub CLI access. Context window size 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 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>	2026-05-11 13:24:48 -05:00
Dotta	0c6f9bdcf8	Revert "fix(ui): improve routine properties panel and history UX" (#5723) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through visible, governable task and routine workflows. > - The routines UI includes the routine detail page, properties panel, history tab, and shared sidebar components. > - PR #5703 changed that workflow by widening the routine properties panel and moving revision inspection/comparison into dialogs. > - The product direction for that change is being paused for now, so the safest path is a direct revert instead of partial edits. > - This pull request reverts merge commit `74cb560c41305ac3283067d1ec8d3060ffdc28cb` from #5703. > - The benefit is restoring the prior routines UI behavior while keeping the revert easy to review and re-apply later if needed. ## What Changed - Reverted #5703: `fix(ui): improve routine properties panel and history UX`. - Restored the previous routine properties panel sizing, panel context API, routine detail layout, and routine history rendering behavior. - Removed the reverted sidebar pane test additions and restored the previous focused routine history test expectations. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/RoutineHistoryTab.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` ### Screenshots This is a direct revert of #5703. The visual state after this PR corresponds to the "Before" screenshots from #5703, and the state being removed corresponds to the "After" screenshots from #5703. #### Trigger Panel Width | Before this revert | After this revert | | --- | --- | | <img width="1742" height="1288" alt="triggers-before-this-revert" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/9e818978-283c-49a3-9401-879be550c67b" /> | <img width="1741" height="1289" alt="triggers-after-this-revert" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2a391769-c355-4219-8da3-d1ea18698430" /> | #### History Panel | Before this revert | After this revert | | --- | --- | | <img width="1741" height="1290" alt="history-before-this-revert" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4c139238-8494-4438-89e1-4277d05bc3aa" /> | <img width="1739" height="1289" alt="history-after-this-revert" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/eaea4f3d-bb65-4af6-b67f-3ba3026fe0c9" /> | ## Risks - Low technical risk: this is a clean Git revert of a recently merged UI-only PR. - Product risk: the routine properties panel and revision history return to the older, narrower workflow that #5703 was improving. - Re-application risk: future work that wants the #5703 behavior back should re-apply it deliberately rather than cherry-picking around this revert. > 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 with local shell and GitHub CLI access. Context window size 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 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>	2026-05-11 13:10:40 -05:00
Aron Prins	74cb560c41	fix(ui): improve routine properties panel and history UX (#5703) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Routines are the recurring-work surface where operators configure schedules, executions, activity, and revision history. > - The routine detail view uses a contextual right properties panel for triggers, runs, activity, and history. > - That panel was too cramped for routine workflows: the routine header could collapse at constrained widths, and revision previews/comparisons were trying to live inside the same narrow panel. > - This pull request makes the routine properties panel wider and responsive without changing the default panel behavior for other pages. > - It also moves routine revision viewing and comparison into focused dialogs so history stays usable instead of rendering dense revision content inside the right panel. > - The benefit is a cleaner routine workflow: triggers remain scannable, the main routine stays readable, and revisions can be inspected, compared, and restored without fighting the sidebar width. ## What Changed - Added optional per-panel layout options for storage key, default width, min/max width, and compact viewport behavior. - Set the routine properties panel to use its own 400px default width and persistence key, while compacting to 320px on narrower viewports. - Made the shared resizable sidebar support right-side panes, custom width bounds, compact max width, and keyboard resizing. - Fixed the routine detail header so title text and action controls remain readable beside the properties panel at constrained widths. - Reworked routine history so selecting a revision opens a read-only snapshot dialog instead of trying to render the whole revision inside the right panel. - Added a side-by-side current-vs-selected revision comparison dialog with clearer diff markers for structured fields, triggers, and variables. - Added focused tests for the resizable pane and routine history behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/RoutineHistoryTab.test.tsx ui/src/components/ResizableSidebarPane.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `git diff --check` - Browser E2E in TestCo at `http://localhost:3100/TES/dashboard`: - created and edited a routine - added, edited, toggled, and deleted schedule triggers - paused automation - ran the routine and stopped the live run - verified runs, activity, history, snapshot dialog, compare mode, restore confirmation, routine list, recent runs, row actions, panel close/reopen, and constrained-width layout ### Screenshots #### Trigger Panel Width | Before | After | | --- | --- | | <img width="1741" height="1289" alt="triggers-before" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2a391769-c355-4219-8da3-d1ea18698430" /> | <img width="1742" height="1288" alt="triggers-after" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/9e818978-283c-49a3-9401-879be550c67b" /> | #### History Panel Before, selecting a revision attempted to show dense revision content inside the already narrow right panel. After, history remains a compact list and revision details open separately. | Before | After | | --- | --- | | <img width="1739" height="1289" alt="history-before" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/eaea4f3d-bb65-4af6-b67f-3ba3026fe0c9" /> | <img width="1741" height="1290" alt="history-after" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4c139238-8494-4438-89e1-4277d05bc3aa" /> | #### Revision Snapshot The selected revision now opens in a dedicated read-only dialog instead of crowding the properties panel. <img width="1740" height="1289" alt="revision-single" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f930f50f-7016-434b-bd81-d8d97304c528" /> #### Revision Compare Historical revisions can be compared side-by-side with the current revision, including changed structured fields and trigger differences. <img width="1740" height="1287" alt="revision-compare" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5640201e-de4f-446b-8941-1b0f140c56d7" /> ## Risks - Low to moderate UI risk: the shared resizable pane API gained optional layout parameters, but existing callers keep the previous defaults. - Routine history now uses dialogs for revision viewing and comparison, so reviewers should confirm the new workflow feels right for restore and compare. - Routine panel width now persists under a routine-specific key, so previous global properties panel width preferences do not carry into routines. > 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 with local shell, git, and in-app browser automation. Context window size 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 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	2026-05-11 07:37:30 -07:00
Aron Prins	c0c58d6b01	fix(ui): prevent lossy cron rewrites + redesign routine triggers tab (#3569) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Humans configure when those agents run via **routines**, which are driven by cron-backed triggers > - The routine detail page exposed triggers through an always-visible inline add form and per-row inline editor, with a ScheduleEditor that only understood a narrow set of cron shapes > - That combination was actively lossy: pasting `0 9,13,17 * * *` silently collapsed to `0 10 * * *` on save, and common shapes (every-N-minutes within a window, multiple times per day, monthly on several dates) had no first-class UI > - This pull request rebuilds the triggers tab around a list of cards + add/edit modal, teaches ScheduleEditor the cron shapes users actually want, and prevents cron round-trips from dropping data > - It also *optionally* tucks the Triggers/Runs/Activity tabs into the shared right-hand PropertiesPanel (same pattern as Issues and Goals) so they stay in view alongside the routine instead of being hidden below the main content > - The benefit is that routine scheduling becomes non-destructive and legible — operators can see, describe, and edit real-world schedules without dropping into raw cron and without fear that saving will silently rewrite their trigger ## What Changed **Core fixes + redesign (required):** - **ScheduleEditor correctness** — `parseCronToPreset` now detects comma lists, ranges, steps, and unknown tokens across every cron field and routes anything it can't round-trip losslessly to the `custom` preset (except `dow === "1-5"` → `weekdays`). Fixes the `0 9,13,17 * * *` → `0 10 * * *` regression. - **ScheduleEditor presets** — adds first-class support for every-N-minutes (with optional hour window + weekdays-only), every-N-hours, hourly at minute offset, daily with multiple times/day, selected-days-of-week with multiple times, and monthly on multiple dates. `describeSchedule` unfolds multi-value hour/day lists into readable sentences. - **ScheduleEditor polish** — swaps raw `<input type=\"checkbox\">` for the shadcn `Checkbox` primitive so hour-window and weekdays-only toggles match the rest of the app. - **Triggers tab redesign** — replaces the inline add form + inline editor with a header + \"Add trigger\" button, compact `TriggerListCard` entries, and a `TriggerDialog` add/edit modal. Enable/disable is now a single-click switch on each card; delete goes through a `ConfirmDialog`. - **Webhook trigger gating** — webhook kind is visible but disabled with \"— COMING SOON\" in the add dialog, matching the old inline form's production behaviour. Editing existing webhook triggers still works. - **Tests** — adds `ScheduleEditor.test.ts` covering the regression cron strings (`0 9,13,17 * * *`, `0 */4 * * *`, `0 10,16 * * *`) plus existing preset patterns as regression guards in the other direction. **Optional layout change (commit `145a86b5` — can be dropped without affecting the rest):** - Moves Triggers/Runs/Activity into the shared right-hand `PropertiesPanel` (persisted open/close, header toggle button), mirroring `IssueDetail` and `GoalDetail`. The reasoning: these tabs are the primary way a human *operates* a routine, and keeping them docked on the right means they're always in view next to the routine content rather than hidden below the fold. Mobile parity is preserved by rendering the same tabs inline below `md`. Trigger cards and run/activity rows were restructured into vertical stacks so they fit the 320px panel without overflow, and the last-result badge became a wrapping inline chip so long error strings no longer fill the card width. - **If reviewers prefer to keep the tabs inline below the routine, this commit can be reverted cleanly without touching any of the fixes above.** ## Screenshots: Old: <img width="721" height="707" alt="triggers-old" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/260bb682-32cb-4dff-b038-d55e45824b04" /> New: <img width="1410" height="1325" alt="Screenshot 2026-04-13 at 12 25 00" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d70dd35b-e72f-4fc6-bb21-be9b0d92b3b1" /> New Add Trigger modal: <img width="1408" height="1321" alt="Screenshot 2026-04-13 at 12 25 07" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0f23a83d-ba2c-47ed-9efa-829e777dcdf5" /> Commit 145a86b5 Properties panel: <img width="1409" height="830" alt="commit-145a86b51265e326160cb8c48e0874cb36d86f37" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f1d42f07-7cd3-4614-8e93-5b585affd4bf" /> ## Verification - `cd ui && npm test -- ScheduleEditor` — new cron parser/describer cases pass. - Full UI test suite + typecheck green locally. - Manual: 1. Open a routine → Triggers tab → verify cards render with enable switch, edit, and delete (confirm dialog). 2. Create a schedule trigger with each preset (every-N-min with window, every-N-hours, hourly@offset, daily multi-time, weekly multi-time, monthly multi-date) → save → reopen → preset + values round-trip intact. 3. Paste `0 9,13,17 * * *` into an existing trigger → editor routes to Custom with the raw cron preserved → save → value unchanged. 4. Try to add a webhook trigger → kind option shows \"— COMING SOON\" and is disabled; edit an existing webhook trigger still works. 5. Toggle the properties panel via header button → state persists across reload. Resize below `md` → tabs render inline. - **Before/after screenshots:** attached in PR description (inline triggers tab → list+modal; raw-cron save hazard → custom preset preservation; bottom-of-page tabs → right-hand PropertiesPanel). ## Risks - **Medium-low.** UI-only change; no API, schema, or migration impact. - `parseCronToPreset` / `describeSchedule` signatures are preserved, but their *behaviour* shifts: more cron strings now resolve to `custom` than before. Any external caller relying on the old (lossy) classification would see different preset tags — none known in-repo. - PropertiesPanel reuse (optional commit) depends on the existing localStorage key behaviour; if two routes ever write conflicting open/close state under the same key, one could clobber the other. Mirrors the established `IssueDetail`/`GoalDetail` pattern, so risk is bounded. Reverting `145a86b5` removes this risk entirely while keeping the fixes. - Webhook kind is disabled in the add dialog only; existing webhook triggers remain editable, so no data is stranded. ## Model Used - **Authoring / PR drafting:** Anthropic Claude — `claude-opus-4-6` (1M context window), via Claude Code CLI. Used for diff review and PR description drafting. Code authored by @aronprins. - **Post-hoc audit:** OpenAI Codex — `gpt-5.4` (high reasoning). Audited the completed work after implementation; found no issues. ## Checklist - [x] Thinking path traces from project context to this change - [x] Model used specified with version + capability details - [x] Tests run locally and pass - [x] Added/updated tests (`ScheduleEditor.test.ts`) - [x] Before/after screenshots attached - [ ] Documentation updated — none required (internal UI only) - [x] Risks documented - [x] Will address all Greptile + reviewer comments before merge	2026-05-11 00:53:10 -07:00
Devin Foley	eb12c42009	Clarify sandbox provider messaging in company environments (#4902) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Company Environments is the operator-facing seam for choosing where compatible adapters execute work. > - Sandbox provider plugins such as E2B extend that seam, but they are not agent adapters themselves. > - The current Company Environments copy put adapter capability rows and sandbox-provider enablement on the same page without clearly distinguishing the two concepts. > - That made it look like installing the E2B sandbox provider caused a new adapter to appear under adapters. > - This pull request clarifies the UI language so provider plugins are described as backing the Sandbox driver rather than being adapter types. > - The benefit is a more accurate mental model for operators configuring environments and adapters. ## What Changed - Added explicit Company Environments copy stating that installed sandbox providers are not adapter types and instead back the Sandbox driver for compatible adapters. - Renamed the support-matrix column from `Sandbox` to `Sandbox via plugin` to make the provider relationship visible in the table itself. - Extended the existing environments UI test to assert the new clarification text. ## Verification - `pnpm test -- --run ui/src/pages/CompanySettings.test.tsx` Result: could not complete cleanly in this worktree because the checkout is missing its local workspace install links. - Direct Vitest fallback against `ui/src/pages/CompanySettings.test.tsx` Result: failed before test collection on local dependency resolution (`react/jsx-dev-runtime`), so there is no passing automated signal from this checkout. - Manual review Confirm the Company Environments page now says sandbox providers are not adapter types and labels the table column as `Sandbox via plugin`. ## Risks - Low risk. This is a copy-only UI clarification plus a matching test assertion; the main risk is wording drift if the product later decides sandbox providers should be surfaced differently. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via the local `codex_local` Paperclip adapter. This run used tool-assisted code editing and shell execution. The exact backend model ID and context window are not exposed in the Paperclip run context for 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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-05-09 23:03:26 -07:00
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>	2026-05-09 18:22:17 -05:00
Devin Foley	0e1a582831	Revert "Add experimental newest-first issue thread" (#5460) ... This is actually bad. Glad it was under experiments.	2026-05-07 16:50:31 -07:00
Devin Foley	a904effb96	Add experimental newest-first issue thread (#5455) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so issue threads are a core operator surface for reviewing work. > - The issue detail page is the place where humans read agent messages, user comments, and execution context together. > - That thread originally rendered oldest-first, which made recent activity harder to see during active review. > - Reversing the thread order changes navigation expectations, timestamp placement, and the "Jump to latest" affordance, so the UI behavior needed to move as a coherent set. > - Because this is a visible core-product behavior shift, it also needed a safe rollout path instead of becoming the default immediately. > - This pull request adds the newest-first issue thread behavior behind an Experimental setting, updates the thread UI to match that mode, and keeps the legacy oldest-first experience unchanged by default. > - The benefit is that reviewers can opt into a more recent-first issue workflow without forcing a global behavior change on every Paperclip instance. ## What Changed - Reversed issue thread rendering so the newest comments and messages appear first when the experiment is enabled. - Moved the plain comment timestamp into the card header in newest-first mode and kept the legacy timestamp placement for oldest-first mode. - Moved the `Jump to latest` control to the bottom of the thread in newest-first mode while leaving the existing top placement for the legacy mode. - Added the `Enable Newest-First Issue Thread` experimental instance setting and wired issue detail to read that toggle. - Added regression coverage for thread order, timestamp placement, jump-button placement, and the issue-detail experiment toggle behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` - Focused checks that also passed during issue review: - `pnpm vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` in `ui/` - `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts` in `server/` - Manual review path: - Enable `Instance Settings > Experimental > Enable Newest-First Issue Thread` - Open an issue with comments/messages and confirm newest activity renders first, timestamps move into the header, and `Jump to latest` sits below the thread - Disable the experiment and confirm the legacy oldest-first behavior returns ## Risks - Low risk: the behavioral change is gated behind an instance-level experimental toggle and defaults off. - The main regression risk is thread navigation drift between the two modes, especially around anchor scrolling and the `Jump to latest` affordance. - There is some UI coupling between issue-detail query state and experimental settings fetches, so future changes in that area should keep both modes covered. - Screenshots are not attached in this PR body; verification is described with automated coverage and manual steps instead. > I checked [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md). This is a scoped issue-thread UX improvement and rollout gate, not a duplicate of a roadmap-level planned core feature. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via the local `codex_local` Paperclip adapter, GPT-5-based coding agent with terminal tool use and local code execution in this repository 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 - [ ] 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	2026-05-07 16:45:12 -07:00
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>	2026-05-07 12:25:26 -05:00
Dotta	6f30003421	Polish operator UI task controls (#5427) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Operators spend most of their day scanning skills, routines, inbox groups, and activity cards > - Several small UI rough edges made those surfaces harder to scan or easier to crash on real API payloads > - These fixes are grouped together because they are low-risk operator quality-of-life improvements rather than separate control-plane contracts > - This pull request polishes skills metadata, routine run-now access, grouped issue creation defaults, monitor activity rendering, and activity row identity layout > - The benefit is a smoother board workflow with fewer small interruptions while keeping the change set compact ## What Changed - Improves company skill source display and the used-by agent list. - Truncates long skill source paths and adds a copy affordance. - Adds a row-level run-now button to the routines table. - Adds grouped issue creation defaults for inbox issue groups and aligns grouped add buttons to the right. - Fixes `IssueMonitorActivityCard` when `monitorNextCheckAt` arrives as an ISO string. - Polishes activity row actor avatar/name layout by using the shared avatar primitive. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx` — 91 passed. - The routines test emitted the pre-existing Radix warning about missing `DialogTitle`/description in dialog content; tests still passed. - Pairwise merge checks against the other two PR branches reported no textual conflicts. ## Risks - Low: changes are UI-focused and covered by targeted component/lib tests. - Low-to-medium: activity row layout changes could affect dense feed scanability; the implementation uses the shared avatar component and keeps truncation behavior. > 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>	2026-05-07 12:24:02 -05:00
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>	2026-05-07 12:23:13 -05:00