d7049e0cae3c86c0d04dd3beee5b22e0e188c6d8
260 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Vasu Yadav
|
d7049e0cae |
fix(server): adopt stale checkout run ownership (#5413)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI-agent companies. > - Issue checkout ownership is part of the execution-control layer that prevents two runs from mutating the same task at the same time. > - The current lock model should preserve `409` conflicts for live competing owners, but it should not strand the rightful assignee behind a stale terminal run. > - A same-agent follow-up run can encounter an existing `checkoutRunId` from a failed, timed-out, succeeded, or missing heartbeat run. > - In that case, the new run should safely adopt ownership instead of failing with an ownership conflict. > - This pull request makes stale checkout adoption transactional and keeps live checkout owners protected. > - The benefit is safer run recovery without weakening single-owner checkout semantics. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Fixes #5350 - Closes #1508 - Closes #1970 - Closes #2083 - Closes #3158 - Closes #3190 - Related stale-lock PRs reviewed during dedup search: #7536, #6658, #5660, #5442, #6223, #7048, #6824, #6799 ## What Changed - Updated issue checkout ownership recovery so the current assignee can adopt a stale terminal or missing checkout run. - Added row locking around stale checkout adoption to avoid races while replacing `checkoutRunId` / `executionRunId`. - Preserved `409` behavior when a different live checkout owner is still active. - Prevented terminal actor runs from reclaiming an unowned checkout lock after the newer eager stale-checkout clear path. - Fixed the stale checkout test fixture so same-assignee cases do not insert duplicate agent rows. - Added/kept focused coverage for stale checkout adoption and live-owner conflict behavior. - Fixes #5350. ## Verification - Focused tests: ```sh pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts ``` Result: ```text 2 passed, 84 tests passed ``` - Server typecheck: ```sh pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck ``` Result: ```text passed ``` - Live curl smoke confirmed same-agent stale checkout adoption returns `200` instead of `409`. ```text old_run_status=succeeded checkout_http=200 patch_http=200 ``` The PATCH response showed `checkoutRunId` and `executionRunId` updated to the new run id. ### Live curl smoke result <img width="1498" height="570" alt="Live curl smoke showing stale checkout adoption returned 200" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4bf834de-e3cd-4495-ac5a-74767b439eeb" /> ### Server request log <img width="631" height="131" alt="Server logs showing heartbeat, checkout, and patch requests succeeded" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ceaaa403-110e-44e8-bac8-5d8506e79cc3" /> ## Risks - Low to medium risk: this touches issue execution lock ownership. - The behavioral shift is intentionally narrow: only the current assignee can adopt stale terminal or missing checkout ownership. - Live checkout owners remain protected with `409`. - No database migration or API contract 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 GPT-5.5 Codex coding agent with repository tool use, shell execution, code review, and local 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 searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge ## Cross-references and status (maintainer) - Closes #1508 - Closes #1970 - Closes #2083 - Closes #3158 - Closes #3190 - Status: rebased onto current master; focused tests and server typecheck pass locally; all required CI is green; Greptile is 5/5; master drift verified. --------- Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicolás Rodrigues
|
f3db7b88ea |
Clear stale checkoutRunId on run finalization and add backstop sweeper (#6008)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The issue subsystem holds per-row lock columns (`checkoutRunId`, `executionRunId`, `executionAgentNameKey`, `executionLockedAt`) that gate checkout, ownership, and release > - When a heartbeat run terminates, `releaseIssueExecutionAndPromote` clears the execution-lock columns but stale checkout locks could remain attached to dead runs in edge paths > - The original fix closed the finalization, checkout, release, and sweeper paths, but PR CI exposed one more process-loss retry path where a queued retry advanced `executionRunId` while leaving `checkoutRunId` pinned to the failed run > - This pull request closes the asymmetry: terminal-run cleanup and process-loss retry recovery release dead checkout locks while preserving live execution ownership > - The benefit is permanent, automatic self-heal of stale lock columns and fewer false checkout 409s requiring board intervention > - Related upstream issue: #6007 ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #6007. Duplicate/related PR search performed on 2026-06-10 with query `checkoutRunId process loss retry stale checkout lock repo:paperclipai/paperclip`. Related PRs found and reviewed for overlap: - #7727 `fix(heartbeat): atomically advance checkoutRunId on process-loss retry` - #7707 `test: cover same-agent stale checkout adoption` - #3068 `fix: clear checkoutRunId when releasing issue execution lock` ## What Changed - `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts` `releaseIssueExecutionAndPromote`: extend the per-issue update to also null `checkoutRunId` when it matches the terminating run id. WHERE clause scoped to `executionRunId = run.id OR checkoutRunId = run.id` for idempotence. - `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts` process-loss retry: when queuing the retry run, move `executionRunId` to the retry and clear the failed run's `checkoutRunId` so the dead run no longer owns checkout. - `server/src/services/issues.ts`: add `clearCheckoutRunIfTerminal` helper, symmetric to `clearExecutionRunIfTerminal`. No assignee/status precondition. Wired into `checkout`, `assertCheckoutOwner`, and `release`. Exported on the issue service. - `server/src/services/recovery/service.ts`: add `sweepStaleIssueLocks`. Scans `issues` where `checkoutRunId IS NOT NULL OR executionRunId IS NOT NULL`, joins each referenced run, and clears all lock columns on issues whose referenced runs are all terminal or missing. Emits one `issue.stale_lock_cleared` activity log row per cleared issue. - `server/src/services/heartbeat.ts`: re-export the sweeper on the heartbeat facade. - `server/src/index.ts`: invoke `sweepStaleIssueLocks` in both the startup recovery sequence and the periodic heartbeat timer chain. - Tests: route-level coverage of the new self-heal path on the next checkout attempt, service-level sweeper coverage, and heartbeat recovery assertions that terminal process-loss cleanup releases `checkoutRunId`. ## Verification ```bash pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run \ src/__tests__/recovery-stale-issue-lock-sweep.test.ts \ src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "queues exactly one retry when the recorded local pid is dead|does not block paused-tree work when immediate continuation recovery is suppressed by the hold" NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts ``` All listed local checks pass. The new and updated tests cover: - Run termination clears `checkoutRunId` when it points at the terminating run. - Process-loss retry clears the failed run's `checkoutRunId` while assigning `executionRunId` to the queued retry. - A different agent calling `POST /api/issues/:id/checkout` on an issue whose prior owner died self-heals via `clearCheckoutRunIfTerminal` and succeeds. - Sweeper clears stale lock columns for issues whose run row is terminal. - Sweeper leaves issues alone while the referenced run is still running. - Sweeper leaves issues alone when `executionRunId` is still running even if `checkoutRunId` is terminal. - Sweeper is idempotent; second pass clears nothing. Manual reproduction of the original bug shape: 1. Create an issue assigned to agent A, set `status='in_progress'`, `checkoutRunId=R1`, `executionRunId=null`, where `heartbeat_runs.status = 'failed'` for `R1`. 2. Reassign to agent B and move to `status='todo'`. 3. Before this PR: agent B `POST /checkout` returns `409 Issue checkout conflict` indefinitely. After this PR: succeeds, lock columns rewritten to agent B's current run id. ## Risks - Low. All clears are scoped by run id, so they only fire when the lock column unambiguously points at the terminating or terminal run. No schema change. No migration. No API surface change. - Behavioral shift: an issue that previously stayed `in_progress` with a dead `checkoutRunId` after run termination now self-heals. Downstream code that reads stale `checkoutRunId` as a proxy for recent run history should already be reading `executionRunId` or the `heartbeat_runs` table. - Sweeper cost: one indexed scan per recovery tick over rows where `checkoutRunId IS NOT NULL OR executionRunId IS NOT NULL` plus a single batched `heartbeatRuns` lookup per candidate. Negligible at expected cardinality; further bounded by the existing recovery cadence. > 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`. This is a bug fix, not a feature. No roadmap overlap. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-opus-4-7`, extended-thinking off, tool use enabled. - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool use enabled, used for the follow-up process-loss retry fix and PR body update. ## 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 - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
67b22d872f |
[codex] Clarify interrupt handoffs and scoped wake semantics (#7855)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue thread is the operator surface where comments, assignee changes, pauses, resumes, and wakeups turn human intent into agent execution. > - Interrupting a live run and handing work to another assignee needs clear semantics so the product does not accidentally keep work alive, wake the wrong participant, or hide why an agent stopped. > - Comment-driven wakes also need strict boundaries so closed, blocked, and dependency-driven work only resumes when there is real actionable input. > - This pull request codifies the interrupt handoff contract, implements backend scheduling behavior, and gives the UI clearer handoff/pause language. > - The benefit is a more inspectable and predictable task lifecycle for both operators and agents. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Paperclip issue: `PAP-10664` / `PAP-10751`. Problem: interrupting or reassigning live agent work could be ambiguous in the UI and backend. Operators needed clearer feedback about whether a handoff wakes an agent, what pause/cancel affects, and when comments should revive execution. The backend also needed stronger tests around comment wake boundaries, retry supersession, and structured agent mention dispatch. Related GitHub PR search found broad workflow-adjacent PRs #5082, #6359, and #4083, but no exact duplicate for this head branch or interrupt-handoff scope. ## What Changed - Added an interrupt handoff semantics document covering destination behavior, wake expectations, and live-run interruption states. - Implemented backend interrupt handoff behavior and comment wake/reopen handling in issue routes/services and heartbeat scheduling. - Hardened structured agent mention dispatch so mentions resolve through the intended dispatch path. - Added UI helpers and components for handoff chips, wake rows, interrupt banners, pause-affects summaries, and composer guidance. - Updated the issue properties assignee picker and issue chat/composer surfaces to make interrupt/reassign behavior clearer. - Added backend, UI utility, component, and Storybook coverage for the new behavior. - Stabilized the new UI component tests with a local `flushSync`-backed act helper matching existing repo practice in this dependency set. - Addressed Greptile feedback by threading historical run `errorCode` through issue-run data and operator-interrupted chat labels. - Addressed Greptile's cancel ordering concern by terminating/deleting in-memory heartbeat processes before cancellation status persistence, with regression coverage for DB update failure. ## Verification - `git diff --check $(git merge-base HEAD origin/master)..HEAD` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/interrupt-handoff.test.ts src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/components/interrupt-handoff/InterruptHandoffViews.test.tsx --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 4 files / 91 tests passed before the Greptile follow-ups. - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 6 files / 191 tests passed before the Greptile follow-ups. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 1 file / 24 tests passed after the historical `errorCode` follow-up. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 2 files / 11 tests passed after the historical `errorCode` follow-up. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` — 1 file / 52 tests passed after the cancel ordering follow-up. - Greptile is green for head `272647636287d034bab8d981eaf5305865aa0f96`; the old inline P2 is resolved/outdated. - GitHub Actions, Socket, security-review, and Greptile checks are green for head `272647636287d034bab8d981eaf5305865aa0f96`. The external `security/snyk (cryppadotta)` status was still pending at `https://app.snyk.io/org/cryppadotta/pr-checks/85b3e8f4-04e1-4f8e-9362-899c8148c23c` after a bounded wait. ## Risks - Medium: changes touch issue comments, wake scheduling, and live-run interruption semantics, so regressions could affect when agents resume or stay stopped. - Medium: UI copy and state grouping for assignee changes may need reviewer tuning after product review. - Low migration risk: no database schema migration is included. - The branch was created before the latest `origin/master` commits; reviewers should confirm CI merge-base behavior and resolve any merge conflicts if GitHub reports them. > 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 use and local command execution enabled. Exact hosted model build and context window were not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] 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 Screenshot note: this PR includes Storybook coverage for the new interrupt handoff UI states rather than captured before/after browser screenshots in this PR-creation heartbeat. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
468edd8b22 |
Add workspace file viewer and artifact links (#7681)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent work is issue-centered, and reviewers often need to inspect files, artifacts, and path references produced during that work. > - Before this branch, workspace-relative paths and artifact file references were not first-class inspectable objects in the board UI. > - Safe file viewing needs shared resource contracts, server-side workspace boundary checks, and UI that opens files without exposing arbitrary host paths. > - The workspace file viewer branch needed to stay as one active PR and be rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` for review. > - This pull request adds the workspace file resource API, issue-page file viewer and browser, markdown file-reference links, and artifact file chips. > - The benefit is that board users can inspect relevant files from issue context while preserving workspace boundaries and auditability. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. Internal Paperclip issues: `PAP-1953`, `PAP-10539`, `PAP-10733`. Problem / motivation: - Board users need to open workspace-relative files mentioned by agents or attached as work-product metadata without switching to a terminal. - The UI needs to support both direct file-path opening and workspace browsing/searching from an issue page. - The server must enforce company access, workspace boundaries, size limits, rate limits, and safe audit logging. Related PR: - Prior closed attempt: #4442 - Single active PR for this branch: #7681 ## What Changed - Added shared workspace file resource types, validators, and workspace-file `resourceRef` metadata validation for work products. - Added server routes/services for resolving, listing, and previewing workspace-relative files with access checks, scan caps, list-specific limits, and audit logging. - Added the issue file viewer provider, sheet, workspace browser, command-palette action, markdown workspace-file autolinks, and artifact file chips. - Updated issue workspace UI and stories/tests for file browsing and workspace file opening. - Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and updated the existing single PR branch. - Addressed current-head Greptile follow-ups by applying `offset` consistently across search/recent/changed file listings, restoring stopped-service port ownership checks before auto-port reuse, and stabilizing the workspace browser pagination test. ## Verification Current local verification after rebase to `public/master`: - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/work-product.test.ts server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.test.tsx ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.copy.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileMarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/context/FileViewerContext.test.ts ui/src/lib/remark-workspace-file-refs.test.ts ui/src/lib/workspace-file-parser.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueWorkspaceCard.test.tsx` - 13 files passed, 197 tests passed. - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx` - 1 file passed, 25 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` - 2 files passed, 90 tests passed. - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed. - Confirmed branch is `0` behind and `46` ahead of current `public/master` after rebase and follow-up commits. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `.github/workflows` changes. - Searched GitHub for duplicate or related workspace file viewer PRs/issues; #4442 is the prior closed attempt and this PR is the single active PR for the branch. - No screenshots were committed; the task explicitly asked not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work. Current remote verification on head `a698a7bc10137baf7d25bd5722e1d6e0343387c1`: - Greptile Review - success, 64 files reviewed, 0 comments added, no unresolved Greptile review threads. - PR workflow `verify` - success. - Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, workspace test shards, serialized server suites, Build, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Socket, and Snyk - success. - `security-review` - neutral, with output saying a draft advisory was filed for maintainer review and is not a merge block. - `commitperclip PR Review / review` - cancelled after the security gate detected flags and timed out while creating/reviewing the advisory. I reran it once and it cancelled the same way; no actionable code/test failure was exposed in the job logs. ## Risks - This is a broad UI/server feature PR, so review needs to pay attention to route authorization, workspace boundary handling, and markdown autolink false positives. - Workspace browsing intentionally caps list results and scan depth; very large workspaces may require users to refine search terms. - Remote workspace preview remains unavailable until remote file-access support is implemented. - The neutral commitperclip security-review advisory needs maintainer review, but the check output says it is not a merge block. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected - check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a Paperclip/Codex local tool-use environment, medium reasoning, with shell/GitHub CLI tool use for branch inspection, verification, rebase, PR update, Greptile review, and CI inspection. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
50bff3b274 |
feat(ui): add collapsible sidebar rail and takeover panes (#7824)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI agents, work, and company context. > - The board UI sidebar is the main way operators keep orientation across companies, projects, agents, issues, and settings. > - The existing fixed expanded sidebar competes with route-specific navigation, especially company settings and plugin routes that bring their own contextual sidebar. > - A collapsible primary rail preserves global navigation while giving contextual pages more horizontal room. > - This pull request adds a persisted collapsed rail, hover/focus peek, keyboard toggle, and a secondary sidebar takeover model for settings and plugin `routeSidebar` surfaces. > - The benefit is a denser board shell that keeps the app rail available without replacing it when a route needs its own navigation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Paperclip issue: PAP-10638 Create collapsible sidebar branch. Related GitHub PR found during duplicate search: #3838 (`feat/collapsible-sidebar`) covers a similar sidebar area but is a different head branch and implementation. This PR intentionally packages the work from `PAP-10638-collapsable-sidebar` into one reviewable branch. Problem description: The board shell needs a first-class collapsed sidebar mode. Contextual surfaces such as company settings and plugin route sidebars should not replace the global app sidebar; they should collapse the app sidebar to a rail and render their contextual navigation beside it. ## What Changed - Added desktop collapsed/sidebar-peek state to `SidebarContext`, including persisted user pins, route collapse requests, and forced collapse for secondary-sidebar routes. - Replaced the old resizable sidebar pane with `SidebarShell`, which supports a fixed 64px rail, persisted expanded width, keyboard/pointer resizing, and hover/focus peek overlay behavior. - Updated `Sidebar`, sidebar nav items, project/agent sections, badges, and account/company menu presentation for expanded, collapsed, and peeking states. - Added `RequestCollapsedSidebar` and `SecondarySidebar` so routes and plugin `routeSidebar` slots can request contextual sidebar layouts without replacing the primary app sidebar. - Wired company settings and plugin route sidebars into the secondary-pane takeover model. - Added focused Vitest coverage for sidebar state precedence, shell sizing, nav item rail rendering, keyboard shortcuts, layout takeover behavior, and route collapse requests. - Updated plugin authoring docs/spec references for route sidebar behavior. ## Verification Targeted local verification passed: ```sh NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/context/SidebarContext.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarShell.test.tsx ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/Layout.test.tsx ui/src/components/RequestCollapsedSidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarNavItem.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/KeyboardShortcutsCheatsheet.test.tsx ui/src/hooks/useKeyboardShortcuts.test.tsx ``` Result: 10 test files passed, 88 tests passed. Additional follow-up verification passed after review fixes: ```sh NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/Layout.test.tsx ui/src/context/SidebarContext.test.tsx && pnpm --filter /ui typecheck ``` Result: 2 test files passed, 28 tests passed, and UI typecheck passed. Latest PR-head remote checks: Paperclip PR workflow, Snyk, Socket, and Greptile are green; commitperclip `review` is cancelled in its security-gate step after filing a non-blocking neutral `security-review` check. Notes: - A direct run without `NODE_ENV=test` loads React's production build in this workspace, where `act` is unavailable; the command above matches the repo stable runner's test environment. - I did not run Playwright/browser e2e or full workspace build/typecheck in this PR-creation heartbeat. - QA screenshots are attached in https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/7824#issuecomment-4661968387 for expanded, collapsed rail, hover peek, and settings secondary-sidebar states. ## Risks - Medium UI layout risk: this changes the board shell and primary sidebar composition across many routes. - Local storage migration risk is low: new collapsed state uses a new key and existing width storage remains scoped to the sidebar width. - Plugin route risk: plugin `routeSidebar` slots now render as secondary panes on desktop, so plugin authors should confirm their route sidebar content fits a 240px contextual pane. - Mobile risk appears low because mobile keeps the drawer model and gates collapsed/peek behavior to desktop. > 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 local shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use. Exact service-side model identifier and context window were not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
0a2230b2ec |
[codex] Guard document comment wake boundaries (#7766)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The execution control plane uses issue comments, assignments, monitors, blockers, and interactions to decide when agent-owned work should wake and run. > - Top-level issue comments are actionable issue-thread feedback for the assignee, but document-scoped comments are review context unless they are converted into an explicit routing primitive. > - Document annotation comments were still wired into the same `issue_commented` wake path as top-level issue comments. > - That made document activity capable of waking an assignee and looking like an execution path even when no issue-level handoff happened. > - This pull request narrows the wake boundary so document annotation activity stays document-scoped while normal issue comments continue waking the assignee. > - The benefit is fewer spurious wakeups and clearer non-terminal issue liveness semantics. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Internal Paperclip work: [PAP-10613](/PAP/issues/PAP-10613), [PAP-10640](/PAP/issues/PAP-10640) Problem description: - Document annotation thread creation and annotation comments were treated as assignee wake sources. - Document-scoped activity should remain visible as document/review context, but should not by itself act as a queued issue wake, monitor, approval, interaction response, blocker, or terminal disposition. - Top-level issue comments should still wake the assignee on agent-assigned, non-terminal issues. Related PR search performed: - Found related prior document annotation work: #6733. - Found related prior issue-comment wake work and revert context: #7678, #7765. - No existing PR for `PAP-10613-why-is-this-task-not-running`. ## What Changed - Removed the document annotation comment assignee wake helper from issue routes. - Kept document annotation reference sync and activity logging intact. - Documented the distinction between top-level issue comments and document-scoped comments in `doc/execution-semantics.md`. - Added route tests proving document/document annotation activity does not wake the assignee. - Added route coverage proving top-level board issue comments still wake the assignee. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes.test.ts` — 2 files passed, 9 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git status -sb` — clean branch tracking `origin/PAP-10613-why-is-this-task-not-running`. ## Risks - Low to moderate behavior change: document annotation comments no longer wake the issue assignee automatically. - Operators who want document feedback to route work must use an explicit primitive such as assignment, issue-thread comment, agent mention, issue-thread interaction, approval, blocker, or delegated follow-up. - No database migration or public API shape change. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with shell/tool use enabled. Exact hosted runtime model identifier beyond GPT-5 was not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
7428fb956f |
[codex] Guard git-sensitive adapter workspaces (#7644)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The affected subsystem is the heartbeat execution path that turns issue assignment into adapter-backed work in a selected workspace. > - PAP-10409 and sibling follow-ups failed before useful adapter output because project/workspace identity became incoherent. > - A project-workspace-linked child issue could keep `projectWorkspaceId` / execution workspace state while losing `projectId`, then a git-sensitive local adapter could fall through toward an invalid fallback cwd. > - Paperclip needs to treat coherent workspace identity as part of the live-path contract, not only as post-failure cleanup. > - This pull request documents that rule, repairs issue inheritance, and blocks git-sensitive adapter launch before it can run from the wrong cwd. > - The benefit is a bounded recovery path: affected issues are repaired explicitly, future malformed workspaces fail fast with a clear recovery action, and the UI surfaces that reason. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #7646 Bug report fields: - Summary: adapter-backed follow-up issues can fail before doing work when issue creation/inheritance preserves workspace ids but drops project identity. - Affected issues: internal Paperclip issues PAP-10408 through PAP-10412, especially PAP-10409. - Steps to reproduce: create a project-scoped parent/follow-up tree where a child issue keeps `projectWorkspaceId` or an inherited execution workspace but has `projectId: null`, then launch a git-sensitive local adapter such as `codex_local`. - Expected behavior: Paperclip derives or preserves coherent project identity during issue creation, and heartbeat refuses malformed git-sensitive workspace launches with one clear recovery action. - Actual behavior before this PR: the run could reach adapter bootstrap with an incoherent workspace context and fail with git errors such as `fatal: not a git repository (or any parent up to mount point /srv)`. - Root cause: child/follow-up issue inheritance preserved workspace execution context without coherent project context. That let heartbeat workspace resolution/adapter launch reach a fallback cwd instead of refusing the malformed workspace state up front. ## What Changed - Documented the adapter workspace-coherence live-path precondition in `doc/execution-semantics.md`. - Updated issue creation/inheritance so workspace-inheriting issues preserve or derive project identity, while existing mismatch validation still rejects incoherent project/workspace combinations. - Added a heartbeat preflight guard for git-sensitive local adapters that validates effective cwd, persisted workspace identity, project workspace identity, and required git metadata before launch. - Added `workspace_validation` recovery actions for this failure class and ensured the source issue gets a visible, idempotent recovery comment. - Surfaced workspace-validation recovery state in issue rows, blocked notices, and recovery action cards, including the manual-repair wake policy label. - Added focused regression coverage for issue inheritance, all heartbeat workspace-validation guard branches, recovery display helpers, and UI recovery components. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` - Result: 1 test file passed, 68 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx` - Result: 1 test file passed, 12 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx` - Result: 2 test files passed, 18 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Result: passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/recovery-display.test.ts` - Result: 7 test files passed, 200 tests passed before the final guard-branch additions; the changed server file was re-run above. - UI coverage: `ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx` contains rendered scenarios for the generic recovery chip, workspace-validation recovery chip, blocked notice indicator, recovery action card, and issue-row chip. - Screenshot capture attempt: Storybook started successfully on `http://127.0.0.1:6016/`, but screenshots could not be captured in this runner because `agent-browser` launched an unusable Chrome binary and Playwright Chromium failed on missing system library `libatk-1.0.so.0`; the runner is non-root and lacks passwordless sudo for installing browser dependencies. - Hosted CI on final commit `969594e7` is green, including `verify`, `Build`, `Typecheck + Release Registry`, `General tests (server)`, workspace suites, serialized server suites, `Canary Dry Run`, and `e2e`. - Roadmap checked: no duplicate roadmap item; this is a tightly scoped reliability fix for existing heartbeat/workspace behavior. - Duplicate PR search checked: no open PR matched `workspace coherence adapter cwd`. ## Risks - Medium risk: heartbeat launch is stricter for git-sensitive local adapters and can now block malformed workspace states before adapter execution. - Mitigation: the guard is limited to local git-sensitive adapters and records a source-scoped recovery action with structured evidence instead of retrying indefinitely. - Compatibility: valid project/workspace execution paths continue normally; explicit project/workspace mismatches remain rejected. > 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 `codex_local` coding agent with terminal/tool use. Work was produced through Paperclip issue execution with focused local test runs. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
dbebf30c89 |
Add low-trust review containment (#7530)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution policy and trust boundaries are part of the product's safety contract. > - Low-trust review work needs narrower authority than normal same-company agents because hostile PRs, comments, attachments, and generated output can carry prompt-injection payloads. > - The current V1 shape gives trusted workers broad company context, which is useful for normal execution but too permissive for a reviewer assigned to hostile content. > - This branch adds a `low_trust_review` preset, source-trust tagging, route-level containment, and quarantine handling so low-trust output does not automatically flow into higher-trust wake context. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `origin/master`, and the low-trust migration was renumbered to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` to avoid collisions with existing `0091` through `0096` migrations. > - Greptile feedback was addressed by tightening low-trust detection, preserving project-level trust policy checks, fixing issue-kind promotion lookup, removing duplicate post-lease isolation assertion, documenting fail-closed source-trust behavior, bounding ancestry checks, enforcing runtime issue context for CEOs, awaiting accepted-plan monitor authorization, and making low-trust issue source-trust tagging atomic. > - The benefit is a first production slice of deny-by-default review containment with regression coverage for the main control-plane pivot surfaces. Fixes #7531. ## What Changed - Added shared trust-policy types and validators, plus database/source-trust fields for issues, comments, documents, and work products. - Implemented server enforcement for low-trust issue scope, agent self-view redaction, secret/plugin/runtime denial paths, promotion checks, and quarantined continuation/wake context. - Added focused low-trust regression tests for resolver behavior, source trust, route authorization, heartbeat preflight ordering, runtime containment, and quarantine redaction. - Added board UI affordances for selecting/reviewing the low-trust preset and surfacing source-trust badges in relevant issue views. - Added `doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md`, updated `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and committed the low-trust review contract plan under `doc/plans/`. - Rebasing note: the original `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` migration was renamed to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied the old-numbered migration are not broken by the renumbered migration. ## Verification - Rebased branch onto current `origin/master` and force-pushed with lease to `origin/PAP-10211-low-trust-agent` at head `2719f31e3`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Resolved upstream UI/comment conflicts by preserving deleted-comment tombstone behavior and low-trust source-trust badges/metadata. - Renumbered the low-trust source-trust migration to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied an old-numbered copy are not broken. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/source-trust.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts ui/src/lib/trust-policy-ui.test.ts ui/src/components/TrustPresetSection.test.tsx` - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` - `git diff --check` - GitHub checks pass on head `2719f31e3`: build, typecheck/release registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary, verify, policy/review, Socket, and Snyk. - Greptile Review passes with Confidence Score 5/5 and zero unresolved Greptile review threads. - No design screenshots/images were added because the task explicitly says not to add them unless they are specifically part of the work. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches shared trust-policy contracts, server authorization paths, heartbeat context generation, migration metadata, and UI preset controls. - Low-trust containment is intentionally deny-by-default; legitimate future review workflows may need explicit allowlisted exceptions. - Plugin/runtime/security surfaces are broad, so regression tests cover the current known routes but future integrations must route through the same containment layer. - The PR is ready for review; GitHub checks are green and Greptile is 5/5. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell and GitHub CLI workflow. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] UI changes are covered by focused tests; no screenshots were added per task instruction not to add design images unless specifically required - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
fff3832a01 |
[codex] Add teams catalog extraction (#7550)
Fixes #7551 ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies, and reusable company/team setup is part of making those companies faster to launch. > - The teams catalog work introduces app-shipped team templates that can be browsed, previewed, and installed into a company. > - Catalog installation crosses several contracts: bundled package contents, shared API types, server import/install behavior, CLI workflows, and the board UI. > - Agents also need a safe path through catalog installs: scoped company selection, explicit source policy, approval fallback for agent creation, and preserved catalog provenance. > - This pull request extracts the completed teams catalog branch into one reviewable PR on top of `public-gh/master`. > - The benefit is a reusable teams catalog foundation with server, CLI, package, docs, and hidden UI surfaces kept in sync. ## What Changed - Added the `@paperclipai/teams-catalog` package with bundled/optional team definitions, generated manifest, validators, catalog builder tests, and migration notes. - Added shared teams catalog types/validators plus server routes and services for listing, previewing, and installing catalog teams. - Integrated catalog install with company portability, skill/source policy checks, provenance metadata, origin hashes, target-manager reparenting, and installed/out-of-date detection. - Added CLI `teams` commands and agent-safe company selection behavior, including `company current` and approval fallback for forbidden agent-run installs. - Added hidden Team Catalog UI/API/query surfaces, Storybook fixtures, and targeted UI tests while keeping the UI route out of primary navigation. - Added docs for CLI/company/teams catalog behavior and removed generated screenshot artifacts from the PR diff. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/teams.test.ts packages/teams-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts packages/teams-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/teams-catalog-install-no-overrides.test.ts ui/src/lib/company-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/TeamCard.test.tsx ui/src/pages/TeamCatalog.test.tsx ui/src/pages/useInstallTeamCatalogEntry.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/teams-catalog typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Confirmed branch is rebased onto `public-gh/master` (`78dc3625a`) and `public-gh/master` is an ancestor of `HEAD`. - Confirmed PR diff excludes `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows/*`, generated screenshot images, and screenshot helper scripts. ## Risks - Medium review surface: this crosses package generation, shared contracts, server install behavior, CLI, docs, and hidden UI code. - Catalog install behavior creates agents/projects/tasks/skills and must keep company scoping, permissions, source policy, and provenance checks strict. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repo policy; CI/default-branch automation owns lockfile refresh. - The Team Catalog UI is included but hidden from primary navigation, so future enablement should re-check visual QA before exposure. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. > > ROADMAP checked: this aligns with reusable companies/templates and plugin-adjacent onboarding work. This PR packages work already developed on the Paperclip task branch for review. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 series coding agent in this Paperclip session; exact runtime context window was not exposed. Used shell, git, `gh`, and local test/typecheck tooling. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots, or documented why screenshots are intentionally omitted - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Aron Prins
|
70b1a9109d |
Improve CLI API parity coverage (#6626)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, with the CLI acting as a scriptable operator and agent interface to that control plane. > - The REST API surface has grown across companies, agents, issues, routines, plugins, auth, workspaces, secrets, and operational inspection commands. > - The CLI had drifted from that API surface: some commands were missing, some command shapes differed from docs/reference material, and several edge cases only failed during end-to-end local-source testing. > - The local development runbook requires these tests to be disposable and isolated from a real `~/.paperclip`, `~/.codex`, or `~/.claude` installation. > - This pull request adds broad CLI/API parity coverage, fixes the actionable bugs found during that pass, and records the reproducible test log under `doc/logs`. > - The benefit is a more complete, scriptable CLI surface with regression coverage for the command families exercised by the parity run. ## What Changed - Added or expanded CLI command coverage for access/auth, companies, agents, projects, goals, issues and subresources, routines, plugins, workspaces, activity/run/cost/dashboard inspection, assets, skills, secrets, tokens, prompt/wake flows, and local setup helpers. - Fixed CLI/API parity bugs found during the run, including context profile patching, issue interaction optional payloads, malformed tree-hold errors, environment duplicate handling, configure invalid-section exit codes, worktree pnpm invocation, token agent ID resolution, plugin tool worker lookup, and routine webhook secret cleanup. - Added missing CLI wrappers and route coverage for health/access, invite resolution URL forwarding, join status normalization, secret lifecycle commands, LLM docs routes, available-skill isolation, positive board-claim coverage, and interactive `connect` prompt-flow tests. - Added a schema-backed `/api/openapi.json` route sufficient for CLI parity and `paperclipai openapi --json` smoke coverage. - Added `doc/logs/2026-05-24-cli-api-parity-e2e-log.md` with the detailed living test/bug log and renamed the log directory from `doc/bugs` to `doc/logs`. - Added `doc/plans/2026-05-23-cli-api-parity.md` and the OpenAPI parity reference used during the pass. OpenAPI note: this PR intentionally does not try to subsume `feature/openapi-spec`. The OpenAPI implementation here is schema-backed and better than the earlier route-inventory stub, but `feature/openapi-spec` is the fuller/better OpenAPI branch because it includes exact mounted-route coverage tests and additional current route coverage. That branch should stay as its own PR and can supersede this OpenAPI route implementation. ## Verification Targeted automated checks run: - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/board-claim.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/connect.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/agent-lifecycle.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` - `pnpm --dir cli typecheck` - `pnpm --dir server typecheck` Manual/local E2E verification: - Ran the full disposable local-source CLI/API parity pass with isolated `PAPERCLIP_HOME`, `PAPERCLIP_CONFIG`, `PAPERCLIP_CONTEXT`, `PAPERCLIP_AUTH_STORE`, `CODEX_HOME`, and `CLAUDE_HOME` under `tmp/cli-api-parity`. - Verified `DATABASE_URL` and `DATABASE_MIGRATION_URL` stayed unset for the scratch server. - Verified live health and schema-backed OpenAPI responses on non-default port `3197`. - Revoked created board/agent tokens and cleaned up temporary plugins, secrets, non-default environments, and project workspaces. - See `doc/logs/2026-05-24-cli-api-parity-e2e-log.md` for the full command-by-command reproduction log. Not run: - Full `pnpm test`, `pnpm test:run`, or `pnpm build` were not run after the entire branch because the branch is broad and the parity pass used focused test/typecheck verification plus live isolated CLI reruns. ## Risks - This is a broad PR and touches many CLI command modules, so review surface is high. The changes are grouped around one theme, but a split may be easier if maintainers prefer narrower PRs. - The OpenAPI route in this PR is not the final/best OpenAPI implementation. `feature/openapi-spec` has stronger exact-route coverage and should remain the source for the dedicated OpenAPI PR. - The living log is intentionally detailed and large. It is useful for reproducibility but adds documentation weight. - No UI changes are intended; screenshots are not applicable. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in Codex desktop. Exact served model/context-window identifier was not exposed in the local app. Work used shell/Git/GitHub CLI tooling, local source inspection, targeted test execution, and live isolated Paperclip CLI/API smoke testing. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@devinfoley.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
c4bb68c14b |
Bundle artifact upload helper with Paperclip skill
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
e7cdd0f8c5 |
Move artifact upload guidance into Paperclip skill
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
0bd13c23a9 |
Add agent artifact upload workflow
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
75f88c588c | Support video issue attachments | ||
|
Devin Foley
|
d9f91576a0 |
Add accepted-plan decomposition exact-once guards and UI state (#6831)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so planning approvals and child-issue fan-out are part of the core control-plane loop. > - Accepted plans are supposed to be a safe bridge from planning into execution, especially when agents wake from review decisions and reuse isolated workspaces. > - The duplicate-subtask incident showed that an accepted plan revision could be interpreted more than once across overlapping runs, which broke the single-source-of-truth model for issue decomposition. > - Fixing that required tightening the backend contract first: accepted-plan decomposition needs an exact-once fingerprint, durable claim state, and retry-safe child creation. > - Once that backend behavior existed, the board still needed visibility into what happened, so the issue detail view needed a dedicated decomposition section instead of forcing operators to reconstruct child creation from raw activity. > - This pull request adds the exact-once decomposition primitive, hardens wake routing and regressions around the incident, and surfaces decomposition state in the UI so future incidents are both prevented and easier to inspect. ## What Changed - Added accepted-plan decomposition semantics to `doc/execution-semantics.md`, including the exact-once fingerprint, durable claim/result expectations, and retry/resume behavior. - Added persistent accepted-plan decomposition claims in the backend, including schema, shared types/validators, service logic, and issue routes for creating and listing decomposition state. - Hardened heartbeat routing so an accepted-plan continuation stays scoped to the relevant planning issue instead of opportunistically re-decomposing another accepted issue on the same assignee. - Added regression coverage for the original failure modes: concurrent same-parent retries, cross-issue accepted-plan isolation, and partial child recreation under the same fingerprint. - Added the `Plan decomposition` issue-detail section plus supporting API/query-key/activity formatting updates so operators can see revision status, owner, child counts, and the linked child issues directly in the UI. - Included the small follow-up UI fix so the decomposition section still renders when the issue work mode is no longer `planning`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "lists persisted decompositions with child issue summaries"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "accepted plan decomposition" server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts` - Manual UI path: create a planning issue without an isolated execution workspace, add a `plan` document, accept the `request_confirmation`, let Paperclip create child issues, then reopen the parent issue detail page and confirm the `Plan decomposition` section shows the accepted revision, status, idempotent-claim badge, and child links. - Separate follow-up bug noted during manual UI validation: accepting a plan on an issue whose run never records `workspace_finalize` is tracked in `PAPA-445` and is not part of this PR’s fix scope. ## Risks - This adds a new migration and a large Drizzle snapshot update; reviewers should confirm the schema shape and generated metadata match the intended decomposition table. - The exact-once claim changes sit on the accepted-plan fan-out path, so regressions there could block legitimate child creation or mis-handle retries if the claim state machine is wrong. - The new UI only appears when decomposition records exist; reviewers should use the manual verification path above rather than expecting existing issues on a stale local instance to show the section automatically. - `PAPA-445` remains an open follow-up for the `workspace_finalize` accept gate when a planning handoff never records finalize; that bug can interfere with reproducing the UI flow on isolated workspaces but does not change the correctness of the exact-once decomposition feature itself. > Checked `ROADMAP.md`: this PR is a bug fix / control-plane hardening change for accepted-plan decomposition, not a new uncoordinated roadmap feature. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` (GPT-5-based coding agent; exact backend model ID/context window not exposed in the run context), with repository tool use, shell execution, and code-editing capabilities. <img width="806" height="1069" alt="Screenshot 2026-05-27 at 11 05 48 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5b00b670-96cd-4470-b0a3-581743bcae28" /> ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
9eac727cf1 |
[codex] Add skills CLI and catalog management (#6782)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies through company-scoped control-plane workflows. > - Agents need reusable, inspectable skills that can be installed, reset, audited, exported, and assigned without bespoke local setup. > - The existing skill truth model needed cleanup so bundled skills, optional catalog skills, runtime skills, and adapter-provided skills have clear provenance. > - Operators also need a practical CLI and board UI for discovering and managing company skills. > - This pull request adds the skills CLI, packaged skills catalog, company skills APIs, and catalog-aware board UI. > - The benefit is a more reusable Paperclip company setup where skills are portable, auditable, and easier for operators and agents to manage. ## What Changed - Added `paperclipai skills` CLI commands and coverage for catalog listing, installing, resetting, and inspecting company skills. - Added a packaged `@paperclipai/skills-catalog` workspace with bundled and optional skill content plus validation/build tests. - Added shared company-skill types and validators used across CLI, server, and UI contracts. - Added server catalog APIs/services for company skill catalog operations, reset semantics, audit behavior, and portability provenance. - Updated adapter skill handling so runtime/catalog provenance remains explicit across local adapters. - Added board UI support for browsing and managing catalog-backed company skills. - Updated docs for the skills CLI/catalog flow and the company skills Paperclip skill reference. - Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master`; no `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows`, or migration files are included in the final PR diff. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/skills.test.ts packages/skills-catalog/src/catalog-builder.test.ts packages/skills-catalog/src/shipped-catalog.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/company-skill.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/plugins/create-paperclip-plugin/src/entrypoints.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-catalog-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts`. - Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "default branch|origin/master|symbolic-ref"`. - Attempted: full `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts`. Four provisioning tests failed while seeding an isolated worktree database from the local Paperclip instance because the local plugin schema dump contains a duplicate-column foreign key (`plugin_content_machine_18a7bc327b.content_case_signals`). The default-branch tests touched by the rebase conflict passed in the focused run above. - Checked final diff: no `pnpm-lock.yaml`, no `.github/workflows`, and no migration-file changes relative to `master`. ## Risks - Medium: this is a broad skills/catalog change touching CLI, server APIs, shared contracts, adapter skill sync, and UI. - Catalog validation and reset semantics need careful reviewer attention because they affect reusable company setup and portability. - No database migrations are included in this PR, so there is no migration ordering/idempotency risk in the final diff. - No lockfile is included by design; dependency resolution will be handled by the repository lockfile workflow. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, running in Paperclip via the `codex_local` adapter with shell, git, GitHub CLI, and code-editing tool access. Exact hosted model build/context-window metadata is not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run targeted tests locally and documented the local workspace-runtime seed failure above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, screenshots were intentionally omitted per PAP-10124 instructions; UI behavior is covered by tests and reviewer inspection - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
8da50dbcf8 |
[codex] Add private browser first-admin claim flow (#6755)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Fresh self-hosted deployments need an operator path before any invite exists. > - Umbrel installs are private LAN deployments, so a one-time browser claim is appropriate only when the deployment is private and unclaimed. > - Public deployments and installs with active invites must keep the existing invite-only model so admin creation is not exposed broadly. > - GitHub PR #2927 established the useful direction, but it needed to be adapted onto current `master` rather than merged as-is. > - This pull request adds that adapted private-only claim flow across server, UI, docs, and regression coverage. > - The benefit is that a fresh private Umbrel-style install can be claimed from the browser without weakening public deployment access. ## What Changed - Added a first-admin claim service and access route support for one-time admin claim eligibility on private unclaimed deployments. - Updated the bootstrap/access UI so eligible private installs show a setup claim path, while public and invited deployments keep invite-first behavior. - Added a bootstrap-pending setup UX lab covering claim, invite, public, and signed-in access states. - Updated deployment and local development docs for authenticated private/public behavior and the Umbrel-style claim path. - Added server and UI regression tests for private claim, public no-claim, active invite fallback, existing board/no-access flows, and health exposure reporting. - Stabilized PR handoff verification by serializing the aggregate server Vitest workspace run, forcing `NODE_ENV=test`, and relaxing the heartbeat batching test around legitimate recovery follow-up runs. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm vitest --run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest --run server/src/__tests__/health-dev-server-token.test.ts` - `pnpm test:run` - QA validation: PAP-10115 passed browser validation with screenshots for private fresh install claim, active invite versus claim conflict, public invite-only/claim-absent behavior, existing invite fallback, and normal board/no-access flows. - GitHub closeout: issue #2579 and PR #2927 were updated with the accepted direction: adapt the implementation, do not direct-merge #2927 as-is. ## Risks - The claim endpoint must remain private-only and one-time; a regression here could expose admin creation on public deployments. - Existing invite behavior must remain intact for public deployments and installs that already have an active invite. - The stable Vitest harness now serializes the aggregate server workspace group; this is slower, but it avoids DB-backed suite collisions under root workspace mode. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected - check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. > > ROADMAP.md checked: this is a scoped deployment bootstrap/access fix and does not duplicate a listed roadmap project. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` for product engineering, implementation, and verification, with tool-enabled local code execution. Paperclip QA browser validation was performed in PAP-10115 by the assigned QA agent; exact adapter model metadata for that QA run is not exposed in this PR context. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
de36743583 |
docs(readme): align README with brand guidelines (PAPA-439) (#6810)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The README is the first impression for developers and operators
landing on the repo, so it has to reflect the current brand voice and
visual identity
> - The existing README leads with an outdated hero ("Open-source
orchestration for zero-human companies"), keeps a board-centric tagline
that no longer matches the positioning, advertises a removed COMING SOON
teaser, and still uses an old header image and an unnecessary footer
image
> - Out-of-date positioning at the top of the README undercuts the rest
of the doc and the brand guidelines refresh at
https://paperclip.ing/brand
> - This pull request swaps the README header image for the new brand
banner, updates the hero copy and tagline, and trims stale callouts so
the README matches the new brand guidelines
> - The benefit is a README that leads with the current positioning
("Paperclip is the app people use to manage AI agents for work.") and
current visual identity, with no stale teasers or extraneous footer
image
## What Changed
- Added new brand banner at \`doc/assets/banner.jpg\` and pointed the
README header \`<img>\` at it (alt text updated to the new tagline)
- Replaced the \`## What is Paperclip?\` + \`# Open-source orchestration
for zero-human companies\` heading pair with a single H1: \`# Paperclip
is the app people use to manage AI agents for work.\`
- Tightened the opening paragraphs ("Open-source orchestration for teams
of AI agents.", trimmed dashboard sentence, "Under the hood:" line,
period on the OpenClaw/Paperclip tagline)
- Removed the \`COMING SOON: Clipmart\` callout
- Softened the Governance copy by dropping "You're the board." in both
the Features grid and the Systems table
- Fixed typo: "solo-entreprenuer" → "solo entrepreneur"
- Removed the README footer image block entirely
- Updated the closing subline: "Built for people who want to run
companies, not babysit agents." → "Built for people who want to get work
done, not babysit agents."
- Left existing assets untouched on disk: \`doc/assets/header.png\` and
\`doc/assets/footer.jpg\` are unchanged from master (only the README
references changed)
## Verification
- \`git diff master..HEAD --stat\` → only \`README.md\` (10+/18-) and
the new \`doc/assets/banner.jpg\`
- Rendered the README locally and confirmed:
- The header banner shows the new brand image
- The H1 reads "Paperclip is the app people use to manage AI agents for
work."
- No COMING SOON Clipmart callout
- No footer image; closing subline reads "Built for people who want to
get work done, not babysit agents."
- No code paths changed; no test suite applies
## Risks
- Low risk. Docs-only change. \`cli/README.md\` still references the
on-master URL for \`doc/assets/header.png\`, which is intentionally left
in place so that link does not break.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), model id \`claude-opus-4-7\` ("Opus 4.7"), running
under Claude Code via the Paperclip claude_local adapter.
## 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 (n/a — docs-only)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (n/a — docs-only)
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (n/a — README-only; rendered review described in
Verification)
- [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
Closes PAPA-439
|
||
|
Dotta
|
9aea3e3d35 |
[codex] Add resource membership controls (#6677)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through company-scoped issues, projects, agents, and board-visible workflows. > - The board sidebar and project list are the daily navigation surface for that control plane. > - Users need to keep all projects and agents accessible while hiding resources they have intentionally left from their own sidebar. > - That requires user-scoped resource membership state backed by company-scoped API and database contracts. > - The branch also needed to preserve HTTP worktree login sessions and keep the project list easier to scan after membership grouping. > - This pull request adds resource membership controls, sidebar leave actions, grouped/sortable project listings, and focused tests. > - The benefit is a cleaner personal workspace view without weakening company-scoped access to the underlying project or agent detail pages. ## What Changed - Added `project_memberships` and `agent_memberships` tables with API/shared/server contracts for current-user join/leave state. - Renumbered the membership migration to `0090_resource_memberships` after rebasing onto current `master`, and made it idempotent for anyone who had applied the old branch-local `0087` migration. - Added project and agent sidebar leave actions, plus list filtering that waits for membership state before hiding resources. - Added grouped project listing, project sorting controls, and reserved row subtitle height for cleaner scanning. - Fixed HTTP auth cookie security handling so HTTP worktree sessions can persist. - Updated focused server and UI tests for the new membership, sidebar, project list, and auth behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/better-auth.test.ts server/src/__tests__/resource-memberships-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/Projects.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx ui/src/components/MembershipAction.test.tsx ui/src/components/EntityRow.test.tsx` - Confirmed the branch is rebased on current `origin/master`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. ## Risks - Migration safety: low to medium. The migration now uses `IF NOT EXISTS` / guarded constraints and is numbered after current master migrations, but it should still get CI coverage against fresh databases. - UI behavior: low. Left resources are hidden from sidebar only after membership state loads; direct detail access remains available. - Auth behavior: low. Cookie security is relaxed only for HTTP/private local-style origins where secure cookies would prevent login persistence. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git workflow, context window not exposed by runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Screenshot note: no browser screenshots were captured in this heartbeat; the UI changes are covered by focused component tests above. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
ece8a51e22 |
[codex] Bundle local branch fixes from PAP-10032 (#6604)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - This branch accumulated multiple already-tested control-plane, adapter runtime, invite, workspace, plugin, and UI quality fixes on the primary Paperclip checkout. > - `origin/master` advanced while those commits were still local, so the branch needed to be preserved and reconciled before review. > - Splitting the branch commit-by-commit against the new base produced overlapping conflicts with recently merged upstream PRs. > - This pull request keeps the remaining branch as one standalone PR because the final diff is 38 files after removing screenshot artifacts, under Greptile's 100-file cap, and can be merged independently after review. > - The benefit is that none of the local work is lost, the branch is now based on current `origin/master`, and reviewers can evaluate the reconciled changes in one place. ## What Changed - Merged the local accumulated branch with current `origin/master` and resolved the invite-flow overlaps from the newer upstream companies query helper. - Preserved the local fixes for invite existing-member behavior, invite link copy fallback, reusable workspace selection, worktree auth, static SPA fallback, markdown wrapping, plugin slot registration, cloud upstream UX/server polish, project sorting, and related tests. - Removed screenshot artifacts from the PR per review request. - Kept the PR under the requested file limit: 38 files changed, with no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` changes. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanyInvites.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InviteLanding.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Projects.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/slots.test.ts ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/invite-accept-existing-member.test.ts server/src/__tests__/static-index-html.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/better-auth.test.ts server/src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - Confirmed `git diff --name-only origin/master...HEAD | wc -l` is `38`. - Confirmed no PR diff entries match `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows/*`, or `screenshots/*`. ## Risks - Medium review risk because this is a bundled rescue PR rather than several narrow feature PRs. - Invite flow and company cache behavior overlapped with newer upstream changes; the merge resolution intentionally keeps the shared `companiesListQueryOptions` helper while preserving local existing-member invite behavior. - Visual review evidence is no longer attached in-repo because screenshots were removed from this PR per review request. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, with repository tool access, terminal execution, and git/GitHub CLI operations. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] UI screenshots were intentionally removed from this PR per review request - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: CodexCoder <codexcoder@paperclip.local> |
||
|
Aron Prins
|
897cc322c7 |
Improve external agent invite flow (#6183)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Agent creation can happen through local runtimes, managed runtimes, and external agents that onboard through invites. > - The old OpenClaw-oriented invite UX lived under company settings/invites and made a gateway-specific path look like a company access setting. > - That hid the broader bring-your-own-agent flow and forced operators to leave the add-agent modal when adding an external agent. > - This pull request moves external agent invite generation into the add-agent modal and makes the copy agent-oriented instead of OpenClaw-only. > - The benefit is a clearer agent-first onboarding path while company invites stay focused on human access. ## What Changed - Added an external-agent invite branch to the add-agent modal, including a dedicated prompt result view with Back navigation. - Added a shared agent onboarding prompt builder and focused modal coverage for prompt replacement/back navigation. - Removed the agent invite prompt UI from Company Settings and Company Invites, leaving Company Invites focused on human access links and invite history. - Updated the hidden OpenClaw Gateway runtime hint to direct operators to the add-agent invite flow instead of presenting it as a blocked runtime card. - Updated invite/onboarding docs, storybook coverage, and server-side onboarding copy toward generic agent language while preserving existing gateway compatibility. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `FAKE_BIN="$(mktemp -d)/bin"; mkdir -p "$FAKE_BIN"; printf '#!/bin/sh\nexit 1\n' > "$FAKE_BIN/tailscale"; chmod +x "$FAKE_BIN/tailscale"; PATH="$FAKE_BIN:$PATH" pnpm test:run` - `pnpm test:run` without the fake `tailscale` shim was also attempted; it failed only in two pre-existing CLI tailnet fallback tests because this host has a real Tailscale address (`100.125.202.3`) where those tests expect no Tailscale. - Focused confirmation for that host-env issue: `FAKE_BIN=... PATH="$FAKE_BIN:$PATH" pnpm exec vitest run --project paperclipai cli/src/__tests__/network-bind.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts` - Manual UI verification: served UI locally in light mode, opened add-agent modal, generated external agent prompt, verified the generated prompt replaces the form and Back returns to the form. ### Screenshots    ## Risks - Existing OpenClaw gateway compatibility remains, but operators now discover external agent onboarding from the add-agent modal instead of company settings. - Agent invites still appear in the invite history table, so that page may show agent-scoped invite rows even though it no longer creates agent onboarding prompts. - Low migration risk: no schema changes. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in Codex desktop; tool-enabled repository, shell, browser, and GitHub workflow. Context window size was not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
38c185fb8b |
[codex] Add agent permissions and controls plan (#6386)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies by keeping task ownership, approvals, and operator control inside one control plane. > - Agent permissions and plugin-hosted company settings sit on the boundary between autonomy and governance. > - V1 needs scoped task assignment rules, plugin extension points, and clearer company access surfaces without weakening company boundaries. > - The branch builds the core authorization service, plugin SDK/host APIs, and UI simplifications needed to support those controls. > - Paperclip EE plugin surfaces were intentionally moved out of this core PR per review direction, so this PR now carries only the public core/plugin infrastructure work. > - The latest updates preserve the PAP-9937 branch changes that belong in this PR, remove the `design/` artifacts, and exclude the experimental `plugin-briefs` package. > - Greptile feedback was applied through the authorization/audit paths and the final cleanup commit was re-reviewed at 5/5 with no unresolved Greptile threads. > - The benefit is safer assignment control with extension hooks for richer permission products while preserving simple defaults for normal operators. ## What Changed - Added scoped task-assignment authorization decisions and routed issue/agent assignment mutations through the authorization service. - Added plugin SDK and host APIs for company settings slots, authorization policy/grant management, assignment previews, and bridge invocation scope propagation. - Simplified core company access UI and moved advanced controls behind plugin-provided settings surfaces. - Added retry-now affordances for blocked issue next-step notices. - Added protected-assignment enforcement for persisted agent/project/issue policies, including explicit-grant fallback behavior. - Added incremental principal-access compatibility backfill for active agent memberships and role-default human permission grants. - Added the Markdown code block wrap action fix from the latest branch changes. - Removed `design/` artifacts from the PR and removed `packages/plugins/plugin-briefs` from the final diff. - Addressed Greptile feedback for plugin actor sanitization, legacy membership handling, audit pagination, unknown grant-scope metadata, and startup test mocks. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 2 files passed, 54 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 3 files passed, 62 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-access-authorization-host-services.test.ts server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` -> 3 files passed, 28 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` -> passed. - `git diff --check` -> passed. - `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs` -> passed. - `CI=true pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` -> passed with no lockfile update. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.interaction.test.tsx` -> 1 test passed. - `git ls-files design packages/plugins/plugin-briefs | wc -l` -> 0. - GitHub CI on `40cd83b53` -> all checks passed, merge state `CLEAN`. - Greptile on `40cd83b53` -> 5/5, 102 files reviewed, 0 comments/annotations added, 0 unresolved review threads. - Confirmed the PR diff contains no `design/`, `packages/plugins/plugin-briefs`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, or `.github/workflows` changes. ## Risks - Medium: task assignment authorization paths are behaviorally stricter for protected/private policy data, so existing plugin-authored policies may block assignment until explicit grants or approval flows are configured. - Medium: plugin-host authorization APIs expand the surface area available to trusted plugins and need careful review for company scoping. - Low: startup now performs a principal-access compatibility backfill, but the migration and runtime backfill use conflict-tolerant inserts. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled workflow with shell, git, and GitHub CLI access. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
d67347be77 |
[codex] Provider vault secrets UX (#6381)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents that need scoped, auditable access to secrets > - Hosted and external deployments need provider vault configuration without exposing secret values in Paperclip metadata > - AWS Secrets Manager vault setup previously required too much manual operator knowledge > - Provider vault discovery and removal belong together as an independent secrets-management improvement > - This pull request adds AWS provider vault discovery/prefill plus vault removal flows > - The benefit is a safer operator path for configuring external secret storage before higher-level cloud workflows depend on it ## What Changed - Added shared validators/types for AWS provider vault discovery payloads and safe provider metadata. - Implemented AWS provider vault discovery preview on the server. - Added provider vault removal service/route behavior. - Added Secrets page UI for discovery prefill, removal messaging, and related rendering coverage. - Added Storybook provider-vault fixtures and captured screenshots for the new UX states. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/secret.test.ts server/src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts ui/src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx` - Result: 4 files passed, 1 embedded Postgres-backed file skipped on this host because local Postgres init was unavailable. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Storybook screenshot capture against `Product/Secrets` on `http://127.0.0.1:60381/iframe.html?id=product-secrets--secrets-inventory&viewMode=story&globals=theme:dark` ## Screenshots Provider vaults tab after this change:  AWS discovery candidate flow:  Provider vault removal confirmation:  ## Risks - Secret provider metadata handling must remain non-sensitive; validators reject credential-bearing Vault URLs and sensitive AWS discovery keys. - AWS discovery depends on deployment credentials being configured correctly outside Paperclip-managed company secrets. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with local shell/git/tool use. Exact hosted model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the local Paperclip adapter runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
bfe6369ef5 |
Guard cheap recovery model usage (#6371)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane that coordinates AI-agent work through issues, heartbeats, comments, approvals, and auditable recovery paths. > - The affected subsystem is heartbeat/recovery orchestration, especially the optional cheap model profile used for operational recovery overhead. > - Cheap recovery should repair status and liveness, but it must not become the worker lane that writes deliverables, continues source work, or propagates cheap execution hints into downstream retries. > - The gap was that cheap-profile hints could follow recovery wake contexts and assignment overrides farther than intended, making real work eligible to run on the cheap model. > - This pull request separates status-only cheap recovery from normal source-work continuations, adds route guards for deliverable mutations during cheap status-only runs, and documents the invariant. > - The benefit is safer retry/recovery behavior: cheap runs can clean up control-plane state, while any remaining source work resumes through a normal/original model path. ## What Changed - Added recovery model-profile work classes so status-only recovery carries explicit guard context and normal-model continuations scrub cheap hints. - Updated heartbeat, productivity review, liveness continuation, and recovery service wakeups to request cheap only for bounded status-only recovery work. - Blocked cheap status-only recovery runs from writing issue documents, plans, attachments, work products, or assigning downstream work back to `modelProfile: "cheap"`. - Added/updated server tests for cheap profile propagation, artifact/document guards, route authorization, retry scheduling, and successful-run handoff behavior. - Documented the recovery model-profile lane in `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` and `doc/execution-semantics.md`. - After rebasing onto current `public-gh/master`, stabilized the new `InstanceSidebar` plugin-filter tests so the PR check lane stays green. ## Verification - Local: `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/services/recovery/model-profile-hint.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-document-restore-routes.test.ts` from `server/` - 3 files, 37 tests passed after final edits. - Local: `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` from `server/` - 44 tests passed after rerunning the cleanup-sensitive file alone. - Local: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/InstanceSidebar.test.tsx` - 4 tests passed. - Local: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed. - Local: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed. - PR checks on latest head `6f8c3b1380f5bd872c6f49f6f7188ecf3bb6d263` - all green, including `verify`, build, typecheck, server/general/serialized tests, e2e, Snyk, and policy. - Greptile: pass 3 returned Confidence Score 5/5 with zero unresolved Greptile review threads. ## Risks - Medium risk: recovery behavior is intentionally stricter, so any path that incorrectly relies on cheap recovery to keep doing source work will now need to hand back to a normal-model run. - Low migration risk: no schema changes. - No product UI changes; the UI file touched is a test-only stabilization after rebasing onto current `master`. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool use and local code execution enabled; context window not exposed in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A: no product UI changes) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
8f45d12447 |
docs: update plugin authoring guide for managed resources (#6261)
## Thinking Path
<!--
Required. Trace your reasoning from the top of the project down to this
specific change. Start with what Paperclip is, then narrow through the
subsystem, the problem, and why this PR exists. Use blockquote style.
Aim for 5-8 steps. See CONTRIBUTING.md for full examples.
-->
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The plugin system is how optional capabilities extend the control
plane without adding hidden core behavior.
> - Plugin authors need accurate guidance for the current managed
capabilities model.
> - The existing docs under-described managed skills and the
routine-first pattern for durable plugin automation.
> - Content-oriented plugins such as LLM Wiki should model recurring
work with visible managed agents, projects, routines, and skills.
> - This pull request aligns the authoring guide, local development
guide, and longer plugin spec with that model.
> - The benefit is clearer plugin guidance that preserves Paperclip
visibility, budgets, pause controls, and audit trails.
## What Changed
<!-- Bullet list of concrete changes. One bullet per logical unit. -->
- Documented plugin-managed skills alongside managed agents, projects,
and routines.
- Added guidance for content-oriented plugins to use managed projects,
agents, skills, and routines instead of private daemon-like state.
- Updated the manifest/spec examples and capability lists for current
plugin-managed surfaces.
- Clarified when to use managed routines instead of plugin runtime jobs
for board-visible recurring work.
- Added a short local plugin development note pointing authors toward
routine-first automation.
- Addressed Greptile docs feedback by marking top-level `launchers` as
legacy and removing a redundant `slug` from the managed skill example.
## Verification
<!--
How can a reviewer confirm this works? Include test commands, manual
steps, or both. For UI changes, include before/after screenshots.
-->
- `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD`
- Reviewed `ROADMAP.md`; this is docs alignment for the completed plugin
system milestone and does not add roadmap-level core feature work.
- Greptile Review: success on the latest head; `3 files reviewed, 0
comments added` after follow-up fixes.
- GitHub PR checks are green on the latest head, including Build,
Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, serialized server suites,
e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, Snyk, and aggregate `verify`.
## Risks
<!--
What could go wrong? Mention migration safety, breaking changes,
behavioral shifts, or "Low risk" if genuinely minor.
-->
- Low risk: documentation-only changes.
- Main risk is documentation drift if the plugin API changes again
before these docs are reviewed.
> 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
<!--
Required. Specify which AI model was used to produce or assist with
this change. Be as descriptive as possible - include:
• Provider and model name (e.g., Claude, GPT, Gemini, Codex)
• Exact model ID or version (e.g., claude-opus-4-6,
gpt-4-turbo-2024-04-09)
• Context window size if relevant (e.g., 1M context)
• Reasoning/thinking mode if applicable (e.g., extended thinking,
chain-of-thought)
• Any other relevant capability details (e.g., tool use, code execution)
If no AI model was used, write "None — human-authored".
-->
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with shell and GitHub connector tool
use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
Dotta
|
d734bd43d1 |
[codex] Roll up May 17 branch changes (#6210)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so agent work needs visible ownership, recovery, and operator controls. > - This local branch had accumulated several related control-plane reliability and operator-experience fixes across recovery actions, watchdog folding, model-profile defaults, mentions, markdown editing, plugin launchers, and small UI polish. > - The branch needed to be converted into a PR against the current `origin/master` without losing dirty work or including lockfile/workflow churn. > - The safest standalone shape is a single rollup PR because the recovery/server/UI files overlap heavily across the local commits and splitting would create avoidable conflicts. > - This pull request replays the local branch onto latest `origin/master`, preserves the uncommitted work as logical commits, and adds a Zod 4 validator compatibility fix found during verification. > - The benefit is that the May 17 local branch can be reviewed and merged as one coherent, conflict-free branch under the 100-file Greptile limit. ## What Changed - Rebased the local May 17 branch work onto current `origin/master` in a dedicated worktree. - Preserved and committed previously dirty changes for recovery retry handling, plugin/sidebar launcher polish, and `.herenow` ignores. - Added recovery-action behavior for returning source issues to `todo` when retrying source-scoped recovery. - Included the existing local recovery/liveness/watchdog fold, Codex cheap-profile, markdown/mention, duplicate-agent, and UI polish commits from the branch. - Normalized shared validator `z.record(...)` schemas to explicit string-key records for Zod 4 compatibility. - Confirmed the PR has no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` changes and stays below the 100-file Greptile limit. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `npm run install` in `node_modules/.pnpm/sqlite3@5.1.7/node_modules/sqlite3` to build the local native sqlite3 binding after installing with scripts disabled - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts packages/shared/src/project-mentions.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/lib/duplicate-agent-payload.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` - First pass: 13 files passed with 201 passing tests; 3 server files failed before sqlite3 native binding was built. - After rebuilding sqlite3: `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts`, `server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts`, and `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts` passed/loaded; embedded Postgres tests were skipped by the local host guard. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` ## Risks - Medium risk: this is a broad rollup PR across recovery semantics, server tests, shared validators, and UI surfaces. - Some embedded Postgres tests skipped locally due the host guard, so CI should provide the stronger database-backed signal. - UI changes were covered by component tests, but no browser screenshot was captured in this PR creation pass. - This branch may overlap with existing recovery/liveness PR work; merge this PR independently or restack/close overlapping branches rather than merging duplicate implementations together. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool-enabled local repository and GitHub workflow, medium reasoning effort. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
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> |
||
|
Emad Ibrahim
|
afb73ba553 |
Scale issue kanban board for high-volume columns (#5309)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI-agent companies, and the board UI needs to keep operator visibility clear as company work scales. > - The involved subsystem is the Issues page board mode, specifically the Kanban rendering path for issue status columns. > - The current board keeps the classic Kanban model, but high-volume columns can become tall, slow, and hard to scan when hundreds of issues are loaded. > - We explored alternatives and chose the conservative Scaled Kanban direction: preserve status lanes and drag/drop, but bound visible cards and collapse low-signal lanes. > - This pull request adds UI-only density controls and high-volume defaults rather than introducing schema or API changes. > - The benefit is a board that remains usable with large issue inventories while keeping active workflow lanes visible. ## What Changed - Added scaled Kanban behavior with compact cards, collapsed cold-lane rails, per-column visible-card limits, and per-column "show more" reveal controls. - Added persisted board density preferences to the Issues page view state, scoped through the existing company-specific localStorage path. - Added board toolbar controls for compact cards, collapsed cold lanes, cards-per-column page size (`10`, `25`, `50`), and density reset. - Added a design spec and implementation plan under `doc/plans/`. - Added focused Vitest coverage for `KanbanBoard` and `IssuesList` high-volume board behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/components/KanbanBoard.test.tsx` — pass, 35 tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — pass. - `pnpm build` — pass before the upstream merge; not rerun after docs/assets cleanup. - `curl -fsS http://127.0.0.1:3100/api/health` — pass against restarted local dev server after applying pending migration `0078_white_darwin.sql`. - `pnpm test:run` — previously failed in unrelated Cursor remote-sandbox server tests: - `server/src/__tests__/cursor-local-adapter-environment.test.ts`: expected probe status `pass`, received `fail`. - `server/src/__tests__/cursor-local-execute.test.ts`: two remote sandbox execution cases exited `127` instead of `0`. Local dev server for manual UI inspection: `http://127.0.0.1:3100`. Screenshots were captured for review and attached in the PR thread rather than committed to source. ## Risks - Low schema/API risk: this is UI-only and uses the existing issue data path. - Board users may need to notice the new density controls if they want to override high-volume defaults. - Collapsed cold lanes remain valid drop targets, so status moves can happen without expanding the destination lane. - Very large remote columns can still hit the existing 200-item per-column query cap; this PR improves rendering, not server-side board pagination. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use, shell execution, local test/build execution, and inline implementation planning. No subagents were used. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
03ad5c5bea |
[codex] Add issue document locking (#6009)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through company-scoped issues, comments, and issue documents. > - Issue documents are the durable place where plans, handoffs, and other work artifacts are revised over time. > - Some documents need to be preserved as operator-approved snapshots while agents continue working on the same issue. > - Without document locking, a later board or agent write can overwrite the document key that reviewers expected to remain stable. > - This pull request adds board-managed issue document locks and makes agent writes to locked keys create a derived document instead of mutating the locked document. > - The benefit is safer document handoffs: approved or frozen issue documents stay immutable until the board explicitly unlocks them. ## What Changed - Added `locked_at`, `locked_by_agent_id`, and `locked_by_user_id` document fields plus migration `0085_tranquil_the_executioner.sql`. - Added document lock/unlock service behavior, route endpoints, activity events, and locked-document write protections. - Made agent document writes to locked keys create a new derived key such as `plan-2` rather than overwriting the locked document. - Surfaced lock state through shared issue document types, UI API methods, document header lock controls, and activity formatting. - Added server and UI tests for lock/unlock behavior, locked document immutability, and UI action visibility. - Updated `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` with the V1 document lock contract and endpoints. ## Verification - `git rebase public-gh/master` completed cleanly after committing the branch changes. - `git diff --check` passed before commit. - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/documents-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueDocumentsSection.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueContinuationHandoff.test.tsx ui/src/lib/document-revisions.test.ts` passed: 5 files, 32 tests. ## Risks - Medium risk because this changes the document persistence contract and adds a migration. - The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` and guarded foreign-key creation so it remains safe for users who may have already applied an earlier copy of the migration. - Locked documents intentionally reject board edits/deletes/restores until unlocked; any existing workflows that expected direct overwrite need to unlock first. - Agent writes to locked keys now create derived documents, which may create extra issue documents when agents retry locked writes. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with tool use and local code execution in the Paperclip worktree. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
b947a7d76c |
[codex] Improve local plugin development workflow (#5821)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI-agent companies. > - Plugins are the extension point for adding capabilities without expanding the core product surface. > - Local plugin development needed a tighter CLI-first loop so plugin authors can scaffold, run, install, inspect, and reload plugins without reaching into internal package paths. > - The server plugin install path also needed local-path handling that keeps plugin identity, dashboard routes, and development watchers coherent. > - This pull request adds the CLI scaffold/install workflow, fixes the server and SDK edge cases that blocked that loop, and updates the agent-facing plugin creation skill and docs. > - The benefit is that contributors can develop plugins from local folders with a documented, repeatable happy path. ## What Changed - Added `paperclipai plugin init` coverage and CLI wiring for local plugin scaffolding. - Improved local plugin install handling, plugin key route resolution, dashboard capability behavior, and dev watcher startup/reload behavior. - Fixed plugin SDK worker entrypoint validation for symlinked package layouts. - Added targeted tests for plugin init, server plugin authz/watcher behavior, SDK worker host validation, and the authoring smoke example. - Added a short local plugin development guide and refreshed the plugin authoring guide plus `paperclip-create-plugin` skill instructions. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/create-paperclip-plugin typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project paperclipai cli/src/__tests__/plugin-init.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/plugin-sdk packages/plugins/sdk/tests/worker-rpc-host.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/plugin-dev-watcher.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm --dir packages/plugins/examples/plugin-authoring-smoke-example test` - Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the PR diff. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches plugin install routing, CLI command behavior, and the local development watcher. - Local path plugin installs execute trusted local code by design; the new docs call out that trust boundary. - No database migrations are included. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled local shell and git workflow, medium reasoning effort. Context window details were not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge UI screenshots: not applicable; this PR changes CLI/server/plugin docs and tests, not board UI rendering. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
0808b388ee |
[codex] Add source-scoped recovery actions (#5599)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where work must end with a clear disposition rather than ambiguous agent liveness. > - Recovery currently detects stalled or missing-next-step issues, but source issue recovery can become split across child recovery issues, blockers, and comments. > - That makes it harder for operators and agents to see who owns recovery and what exact action is needed on the original issue. > - Source-scoped recovery actions give the original issue a first-class active recovery state with owner, evidence, wake policy, and resolution outcome. > - This pull request adds the recovery-action data model, backend reconciliation and resolution APIs, and board UI indicators/actions. > - The benefit is clearer stalled-work recovery without losing source issue context or relying on comments as the liveness path. ## What Changed - Added the `issue_recovery_actions` schema, shared types/constants/validators, and an idempotent `0084_issue_recovery_actions` migration ordered after current `master` migrations. - Updated stranded/missing-disposition recovery to create source-scoped recovery actions, wake the recovery owner on the source issue, and avoid locking the source issue for recovery-action wakes. - Added API support for reading active recovery actions on issue detail/list surfaces and resolving them with restored, blocked, cancelled, or false-positive outcomes. - Require blocked recovery resolutions to have an unresolved first-class blocker, and removed the UI shortcut that could mark recovery blocked without a blocker selection path. - Surfaced recovery indicators/actions in the issue UI, blocker notices, active run panels, issue rows, and Storybook coverage. - Updated docs and focused tests for recovery semantics, ownership, races, stale comments, and UI behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 5 files, 72 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering check. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up verification after blocker-resolution guard: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 3 files, 27 tests passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - UI states are available in `ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`; screenshot capture helper is `scripts/screenshot-recovery-card.cjs`. ## Risks - Medium: recovery behavior changes from child recovery issue ownership toward source-scoped actions, so operators may see stalled-work state in new places. - Migration risk is mitigated by using the next migration slot after `master` and making the table/constraints/index creation idempotent for anyone who previously applied the old branch-local `0082_dizzy_master_mold` migration. - Existing child recovery issue paths are still guarded for already-created recovery issues, but new source-scoped flows should be watched in CI and Greptile review. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use enabled for shell, Git, GitHub, and local test execution. Context window not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
0096b56a1c |
[codex] Add LLM Wiki plugin host support (#5597)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - The plugin system needs host contracts and runtime support before large plugins can integrate cleanly. > - The source branch mixed the LLM Wiki package with supporting host/runtime work, managed plugin skills, root-level storage spaces, and a bookmarks reference plugin. > - [PAP-9173](/PAP/issues/PAP-9173) asked for the current branch to be split by file boundary: plugin package separately from everything else. > - [PAP-9188](/PAP/issues/PAP-9188) clarified that LLM Wiki may have plugin-local spaces, but Paperclip core should not reorganize top-level local storage into spaces. > - Follow-up review clarified that the bookmarks example should not ship in this PR either. > - This pull request contains the non-`packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/` host/runtime work, keeps runtime state under the selected Paperclip instance root, and no longer includes the bookmarks example. ## What Changed - Added/updated plugin host contracts, SDK types, worker RPC plumbing, managed plugin skill support, and related server tests. - Removed the bookmarks example plugin package and its bundled-example/workspace references. - Removed the root-level local spaces CLI/migration surface and restored instance-root runtime defaults for config, db, logs, storage, secrets, workspaces, projects, and adapter homes. - Replaced shared root `space-paths` helpers with `home-paths` helpers for core runtime storage. - Tightened stranded recovery unique-conflict detection so concurrent recovery scans reuse the raced recovery issue when Postgres errors are wrapped. - Kept `packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/` out of this PR diff; plugin-local spaces remain in the stacked plugin-only PR. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/data-dir.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/home-paths.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts packages/shared/src/home-paths.test.ts packages/db/src/runtime-config.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-instructions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/runtime-config.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "reuses the raced stranded recovery issue"` skipped locally because embedded Postgres did not initialize on this macOS temp host; the code path was typechecked and is covered by Linux CI. - Boundary check: no core references remain for `PAPERCLIP_SPACE_ID`, `spaces migrate-default`, `@paperclipai/shared/space-paths`, `registerSpacesCommands`, or the removed bookmarks example. - Previous PR head `4f23e034` had green GitHub checks: `verify`, all four serialized server shards, `e2e`, `Canary Dry Run`, `policy`, Snyk, and `Greptile Review`. Current head `582f466d` is re-running checks after the bookmarks deletion. ## Risks - Plugin host changes touch shared runtime paths, so regressions would most likely appear in adapter startup, plugin loading, or local dev path defaults. - Removing the bookmarks example also removes one demonstration of plugin database namespaces plus local-folder persistence; remaining plugin examples still cover bundled example discovery and plugin host flows. - The plugin package itself is intentionally deferred to the stacked plugin-only PR, where LLM Wiki plugin-local spaces live. - Existing installs that tested the transient root-level spaces CLI should stop using it; this PR intentionally removes that unsupported migration surface before merge. > 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 CLI, tool use and local code execution enabled; context window not exposed. ## 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, except where noted above for host-specific embedded Postgres initialization - [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 Stacked follow-up: PR #5592 contains only `packages/plugins/plugin-llm-wiki/` and targets this branch. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
778e775c35 |
Add secrets provider vaults and remote import (#5429)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies and needs secrets handling to work across local development, hosted operators, and governed agent execution. > - The affected subsystem is the company-scoped secrets control plane: database schema, server services/routes, CLI workflows, and the Secrets settings UI. > - The gap was that secrets were local-only and operators could not manage provider vaults or import existing remote references without exposing plaintext. > - This branch adds provider vault configuration plus an AWS Secrets Manager remote-import path while preserving company boundaries, binding context, and audit trails. > - I kept the PR to a single branch PR, removed unrelated lockfile/package drift, rebased the full branch onto the current `public-gh/master`, and addressed fresh Greptile findings. > - The benefit is a reviewable implementation of provider-backed secrets with focused tests covering provider selection, import conflicts, deleted secret reuse, rotation guards, and AWS signing behavior. ## What Changed - Added provider vault support for company secrets, including provider config storage, default vault handling, health checks, binding usage, access events, and remote import preview/commit. - Added an AWS Secrets Manager provider using SigV4 request signing, bounded request timeouts, namespace guardrails, cached runtime credential resolution, and external-reference linking without plaintext reads. - Added Secrets UI surfaces for vault management and remote import, plus CLI/API documentation for setup and operations. - Stabilized routine webhook secret binding paths and SSH environment-driver fixture bindings discovered during verification. - Addressed Greptile and CI findings: no lockfile/package drift, monotonic migration metadata, disabled-vault default races, soft-deleted secret hiding/recreate behavior, remove behavior with disabled vaults, soft-deleted external-reference re-import, non-active rotation guards, managed-secret soft deletion through PATCH, and per-call AWS SDK credential client churn. - Rebased this branch onto `public-gh/master` at `0e1a5828` and force-pushed with lease to keep this as the single PR for the branch. ## Verification - `git fetch public-gh master` - `git rebase public-gh/master` - `git diff --name-only public-gh/master...HEAD | grep '^pnpm-lock\.yaml$' || true` confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not in the PR diff. - Confirmed migration ordering: master ends at `0081_optimal_dormammu`; this PR adds `0082_dry_vision` and `0083_company_secret_provider_configs`. - Inspected migrations for repeat safety: new tables/indexes use `IF NOT EXISTS`; foreign keys are guarded by `DO $$ ... IF NOT EXISTS`; column additions use `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. - `pnpm test:run` ran the full stable Vitest path before the Greptile follow-up commits; it completed with 3 timing-related failures under parallel load: `codex-local-execute.test.ts`, `cursor-local-execute.test.ts`, and `environment-service.test.ts`. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts src/__tests__/cursor-local-execute.test.ts src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts` passed on targeted rerun (`24/24`). - `pnpm build` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. Vite reported existing chunk-size/dynamic-import warnings. - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`26/26`). - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`39/39`). - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - Captured Storybook screenshots from `ui/storybook-static` for visual review. - Latest PR checks on `5ca3a5cf`: `policy`, serialized server suites 1/4-4/4, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, `security/snyk`, and `Greptile Review` pass; aggregate `verify` is still registering the completed child checks. - Greptile review loop continued through the latest requested pass; all Greptile review threads are resolved and the latest `Greptile Review` check on `5ca3a5cf` passed with 0 comments added. ## Screenshots Before: the provider-vault and remote-import surfaces did not exist on `master`; these are after-state screenshots from the Storybook fixtures.    ## Risks - Migration risk: this adds new secret provider tables and extends existing secret rows. The migrations were checked for monotonic ordering and idempotent guards, but reviewers should still inspect upgrade behavior carefully. - Provider risk: AWS support uses direct SigV4 requests. Automated tests cover signing, request timeouts, vault-config selection, namespace guardrails, pending-version archival, sanitized provider errors, and service-level cleanup paths. A real-vault AWS smoke test remains deployment validation for an operator with AWS credentials rather than an unverified merge blocker in this local branch. - UI risk: the Secrets page and import dialog are large new surfaces; screenshots are included above for reviewer inspection. - Verification risk: the full local stable test command hit parallel-load timing failures, although the exact failed files passed when rerun directly. - Operational risk: remote import intentionally avoids plaintext reads; operators must understand that imported external references resolve at runtime and may fail if AWS permissions change. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with local shell/tool use in the Paperclip worktree. Exact context-window size was not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
e400315cbf |
Guard assigned backlog liveness (#5428)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The issue graph and liveness recovery system decide whether assigned work is executable or parked > - Assigned issues created without an explicit status could silently land in backlog, making parents look blocked with no productive wake path > - The server, shared validators, recovery analysis, and UI all need to agree on that execution semantic > - This pull request makes assigned issue creation default to `todo`, flags assigned backlog blockers, and surfaces the state in the board > - The benefit is that parked assigned work becomes intentional and visible instead of creating silent liveness stalls ## What Changed - Adds contract tests for assigned issue creation defaults. - Defaults assigned issue creation to `todo` when status is omitted while preserving explicit `backlog` parking. - Exposes `resolveCreateIssueStatusDefault` through shared validators. - Teaches liveness/blocker attention paths to distinguish assigned backlog blockers. - Adds UI notices, row/header badges, and issue detail safeguards for assigned backlog blockers. - Adds Storybook fixtures and execution-semantics documentation for the assigned-backlog behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-assigned-backlog-contract-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueAssignedBacklogNotice.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx` — 50 passed, 23 skipped. - Skipped tests were embedded Postgres suites on this host with the repo skip message: `Postgres init script exited with code null. Please check the logs for extra info. The data directory might already exist.` - Pairwise merge check against the issue-controls PR branch completed without conflicts via `git merge --no-commit --no-ff` in a temporary worktree. - Screenshots for assigned-backlog UI states: [light](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-light.png), [dark](docs/pr-screenshots/pr-5428/assigned-backlog-dark.png). - Follow-up checks: `pnpm --filter /ui typecheck`; `pnpm --filter /mcp-server build`; `pnpm --filter /mcp-server test`; `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`; focused UI component tests. - Remote PR checks on head `6300b3c`: policy, verify, serialized server shards 1/4-4/4, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Greptile Review, and Snyk all passed. ## Risks - Medium: changes status defaulting for assigned issue creation when the caller omits status. Explicit `backlog` remains supported, and server/shared tests cover both paths. - Medium: liveness classification changes can affect blocker attention labels; focused service and UI tests cover the new assigned-backlog state. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool-enabled Paperclip heartbeat environment. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
a1b30c9f35 |
Add planning mode for issue work (#5353)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board users and agents coordinate execution. > - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead of immediate implementation work. > - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution comments from planning-oriented issue work. > - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI affordances for standard vs planning mode. > - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed, discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing the normal issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB, shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and adapter heartbeat payloads. - Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for `issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations. - Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested follow-up issues. - Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles. - Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual verification spec for planning-mode surfaces. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` - `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts` ## Screenshots Desktop planning detail:  Desktop planning row:  Desktop staged standard toggle:  Mobile planning detail:  Mobile planning row:  ## Risks - Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final numbered migration safely. - Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by defaulting missing values to `standard`. - UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning display and toggle 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, GPT-5 coding agent in a local Paperclip worktree, with shell/tool use. Exact context-window size 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 tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
11ffd6f2c5 |
Improve ACPX adapter configuration (#5290)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents across several adapter implementations. > - ACPX is a local adapter path that can proxy Claude and Codex-style execution. > - Its configuration needed stronger schema defaults, provider-aware model handling, and better UI support. > - Plugin authors also need clear docs for managed resources. > - This pull request improves ACPX adapter configuration and documents plugin-managed resources. > - The benefit is a more predictable adapter setup path without changing unrelated control-plane behavior. ## What Changed - Improved ACPX config schema, execution config handling, UI build config, and route coverage. - Added ACPX model filtering support and tests. - Updated the agent config form and storybook coverage for ACPX model/provider behavior. - Expanded plugin authoring documentation for managed resources. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/acpx-local-execute.test.ts server/src/__tests__/adapter-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/acpx-model-filter.test.ts` ## Risks - Low-to-medium risk: adapter configuration behavior changes can affect ACPX users, but the change is isolated to ACPX/plugin-doc surfaces and covered by targeted adapter tests. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
3c73ed26b5 |
Expand plugin host surface (#5205)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The plugin system is the extension boundary for optional product capabilities > - Rich plugins need more than a worker entrypoint: they need scoped database storage, local project folders, managed agents/routines, host navigation, and reusable UI components > - The LLM Wiki work exposed those missing host surfaces while keeping plugin code outside the core control plane > - This pull request expands the core plugin host, SDK, server APIs, and UI bridge so plugins can declare and use those surfaces > - The benefit is that future plugins can integrate with Paperclip through documented, validated contracts instead of bespoke server or UI imports ## What Changed - Added plugin-managed database namespaces and migration tracking, including Drizzle schema/migration files and SQL validation for namespace isolation. - Added server support for plugin local folders, managed agents, managed routines, scoped plugin APIs, and plugin operation visibility. - Expanded shared plugin manifest/types/validators and SDK host/testing/UI exports for richer plugin surfaces. - Added reusable UI pieces for file trees, managed routines, resizable sidebars, route sidebars, and plugin bridge initialization. - Updated plugin docs and example plugins to use the expanded host and SDK surface. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-agents.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routines.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts ui/src/api/plugins.test.ts ui/src/components/FileTree.test.tsx ui/src/components/ResizableSidebarPane.test.tsx ui/src/pages/PluginPage.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts` passed: 11 files, 67 tests. - Confirmed this PR changes 89 files and does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`. ## Risks - Medium: this expands plugin host contracts across db/shared/server/ui and includes a new core migration (`0076_useful_elektra.sql`). - The plugin database namespace validator is intentionally restrictive; plugin authors may need follow-up affordances for SQL patterns that remain blocked. - Merge this before the LLM Wiki plugin PR so the plugin can resolve the new SDK and host APIs. > 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/git/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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
29401b231b |
fix(ci): gate new release packages on npm bootstrap (#5146)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous agent companies, so its release automation is part of the core operator trust boundary. > - The affected subsystem is npm/GitHub Actions release publishing for the public monorepo packages. > - The concrete failure was that a newly added package reached `master`, the canary workflow attempted its first publish, and npm trusted publishing was not yet bootstrapped for that package. > - That means the problem is not just one broken run; it is a missing pre-merge guard that lets release-ineligible packages land and only fail once `publish_canary` runs. > - This pull request makes release enrollment explicit, validates that enrollment in CI, and adds a PR-time bootstrap check against npm for changed release-enabled package manifests. > - The result is that we keep trusted publishing, avoid teaching CI to `npm adduser`, and move this class of failure from post-merge canary time to pre-merge review time. ## What Changed - Added `scripts/release-package-manifest.json` so release-managed public packages are explicitly enrolled instead of being inferred from every non-private workspace package. - Hardened `scripts/release-package-map.mjs` to validate the manifest before release workflows rewrite versions or assemble publish payloads. - Added `scripts/check-release-package-bootstrap.mjs` and wired it into `.github/workflows/pr.yml` so PRs that change a release-enabled package manifest fail if that package does not already exist on npm. - Added release-package manifest coverage tests to `scripts/release-package-map.test.mjs` and included them in `pnpm run test:release-registry`. - Wired manifest validation into `.github/workflows/release.yml` and documented the first-publish bootstrap policy in `doc/PUBLISHING.md` and `doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md`. ## Verification - `pnpm run test:release-registry` - `./scripts/release.sh canary --skip-verify --dry-run` - Confirmed the committed diff contains no obvious PII/secrets via targeted pattern scan before pushing. ## Risks - Low risk overall: this is CI/release-policy code, not product runtime logic. - The new PR bootstrap check depends on npm metadata availability, so a transient npm outage could block a PR that changes a release-enabled package manifest. - The manifest introduces a new source of truth that must stay aligned with public package additions, but that is intentional and now enforced. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via the `codex_local` Paperclip adapter; GPT-5-based coding agent with tool use, terminal execution, git, and GitHub CLI. Exact served model ID/context window are not exposed by the local runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
57229d0f24 |
[codex] Add issue monitor liveness controls (#4988)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies where work must stay observable, governable, and recoverable. > - The task/heartbeat subsystem owns agent execution continuity, issue state transitions, and visible recovery behavior. > - Waiting on an external service is not the same as being blocked when the assignee still owns a future check. > - The gap was that agents had no first-class one-shot monitor state for external-service waits, so recovery could look stalled or require ad hoc comments. > - This pull request adds bounded issue monitors that can wake the owner, clear exhausted waits, and produce explicit recovery behavior. > - It also surfaces monitor status in the board UI and documents when to use monitors versus `blocked`. > - The benefit is clearer liveness semantics for asynchronous waits without weakening single-assignee task ownership. ## What Changed - Added issue monitor fields, shared types, validators, constants, and an idempotent `0075` migration for scheduled monitor state. - Added server-side monitor scheduling, dispatch, recovery bounds, activity logging, and external-ref redaction. - Added board/agent route coverage for monitor permissions and child monitor scheduling. - Added issue detail/property UI for monitor state, a monitor activity card, and Storybook stories for review surfaces. - Documented monitor semantics and recovery policy behavior in `doc/execution-semantics.md`. - Addressed Greptile review feedback by preserving monitor state in skipped-stage builders and making board monitor saves send `scheduledBy: "board"`. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/lib/activity-format.test.ts` - First run passed 5 files and failed to collect 2 server suites because the worktree was missing the optional `acpx/runtime` dependency. - After `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`, reran the 2 failed suites successfully. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Storybook screenshot captured from `http://127.0.0.1:6006/iframe.html?viewMode=story&id=product-issue-monitor-surfaces--monitor-surfaces` with Playwright. ## Screenshots  ## Risks - Medium: this changes heartbeat recovery behavior for scheduled external-service waits, so regressions could affect wake timing or recovery issue creation. - Migration risk is reduced by using `IF NOT EXISTS` for the new issue monitor columns and index. - External monitor references are treated as secret-adjacent and are intentionally omitted from visible activity/wake payloads. > 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 terminal 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 - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots or Storybook review surfaces - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
e8275318ba |
[codex] Raise agent heartbeat concurrency default (#4954)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Agent heartbeat settings control how much parallel work one employee can run > - The previous default of 5 concurrent runs was too restrictive for active local agent teams > - The shared default, heartbeat clamp, docs, and route/import/UI expectations need to agree > - This pull request raises the default heartbeat concurrency to 20 while keeping explicit headroom up to 50 for power users > - The benefit is higher throughput for agent teams without each new agent needing manual runtime config edits ## What Changed - Raised `AGENT_DEFAULT_MAX_CONCURRENT_RUNS` from 5 to 20. - Raised the heartbeat service max clamp from 10 to 50, keeping the new default below the ceiling. - Updated V1 implementation docs and tests that assert default imported/exported runtime config. - Updated the new-agent UI runtime config test to assert the shared default constant instead of duplicating the numeric value. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts` ## Risks - Medium risk: new agents can consume more local execution capacity by default. The heartbeat scheduler still respects configured max concurrency and budget/pause controls, and operators can lower or raise the per-agent cap within the `1..50` clamp. > 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 and local command execution. Exact context window was not exposed in the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
a3de1d764d |
Add cheap model profiles for local adapters (#4881)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where adapters are the boundary between the board, agents, and execution runtimes. > - Local adapters currently expose a primary runtime configuration, but operators often need a cheaper model lane for routine or low-risk work. > - That cheap lane has to stay adapter-owned: runtime profile settings should not mutate the primary adapter config or bypass existing auth/secret mediation. > - Issue creation also needs an ergonomic way to request primary, cheap, or custom model behavior for a selected assignee. > - This pull request adds a first-class `cheap` model profile contract across adapter capabilities, heartbeat config resolution, agent configuration, and issue creation. > - The benefit is cheaper task execution can be configured and requested explicitly while preserving adapter boundaries, secret handling, and audit visibility. ## What Changed - Added adapter model-profile capability metadata and a `cheap` profile contract for supported local adapters. - Applied `runtimeConfig.modelProfiles.cheap.adapterConfig` during heartbeat config resolution, including requested/applied/fallback run metadata. - Added agent configuration UI for cheap model profile settings without writing those settings into primary `adapterConfig`. - Added New Issue assignee model lane controls for Primary / Cheap / Custom and request payload handling. - Added run ledger profile badges and Storybook stories for the new cheap-lane UI states. - Added tests for validators, heartbeat model profile application, permission/secret mediation, UI payload helpers, and run ledger rendering. - Added committed UI verification screenshots under `docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/`. - Addressed Greptile review feedback around cheap-profile defaults, shared profile types, and fallback test data. ## Verification Local: - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/adapter-registry.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx ui/src/lib/agent-config-patch.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-assignee-overrides.test.ts ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts` — passed, 8 files / 103 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` — passed after Greptile/rebase follow-up, 2 files / 17 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed after Greptile/rebase follow-up. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — did not complete successfully in this local worktree: it stopped in pre-existing `@paperclipai/adapter-utils` sandbox/SSH fixture suites outside this PR diff. Failures were 5s local timeouts plus `git init -b` unsupported by this machine's Git 2.21.0. The branch-specific targeted suites above passed. - Branch was fetched/rebased onto `public-gh/master`; `git rev-list --left-right --count public-gh/master...HEAD` reports `0 9`. Remote PR checks on latest head `e30bf399146451c86cee98ed528d51d33fa5af5a`: - `policy` — passed. - `verify` — passed. - `e2e` — passed. - `Greptile Review` — passed, confidence score 5/5; Greptile review threads resolved. - `security/snyk (cryppadotta)` — passed. Screenshots: - [New issue cheap lane desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-cheap-desktop.png) - [New issue custom lane desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-custom-desktop.png) - [New issue unsupported adapter desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/newissue-unsupported-desktop.png) - [Run ledger model profile badges desktop](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/PAP-2837-plan-cheap-model-for-adapters-that-can-support-it/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/runledger-profile-badges-desktop.png) - Mobile variants are also in `docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2837/`. ## Risks - Medium: heartbeat config mediation now merges runtime model profiles into adapter configs, so adapter secret normalization and host-command restrictions must keep covering nested config paths. - Medium: the UI adds another issue creation choice; unsupported adapters must keep hiding the cheap lane and preserve primary behavior. - Low migration risk: no database migration is 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 coding agent using GPT-5-class reasoning with repo tool use and command execution. Exact served model/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 - [ ] 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 Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
cd606563f6 |
Expand database backups to non-system schemas (#4859)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - Reliable backups are part of operating that control plane safely. > - The previous backup path was public-schema oriented and did not clearly cover plugin-owned schemas or migration history. > - Paperclip now has plugin database namespaces and Drizzle migration state that must survive backup/restore. > - This pull request expands logical database backups to non-system schemas and documents the backup boundary. > - The benefit is safer restore behavior for core and plugin-owned database state without implying full filesystem disaster recovery. ## What Changed - Include non-system database schemas in JavaScript and pg_dump backup paths. - Preserve enum, table, sequence, index, constraint, migration, and plugin-schema objects across backup/restore. - Add restore coverage for plugin-owned schemas and Drizzle migration history. - Clarify docs that DB backups are logical database backups, not full instance filesystem backups. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/backup-lib.test.ts` - Result: 1 test file passed, 4 tests passed. - Confirmed this PR does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` changes. ## Risks - Medium: backup generation touches schema discovery and restore ordering, so unusual database objects may need additional coverage later. - 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 coding agent, tool use enabled, medium reasoning effort. Exact hosted context-window details are not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Note: no UI changes are included in this PR, so screenshots are not applicable. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
a0f5cbffd7 |
Harden release flow with registry verification and dist-tag checks (#4800)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Paperclip is distributed as npm packages, including plugins like `plugin-e2b` > - The release process publishes canary and stable builds via npm dist-tags > - But there was no automated verification that published packages actually landed with the correct dist-tags, and broken canary publishes could silently ship to users > - This PR adds a registry verification script that checks published packages match their expected dist-tags, and wires it into PR CI so regressions are caught before merge > - The benefit is release integrity is verified automatically, and broken dist-tag states are caught early ## What Changed - Added `scripts/verify-release-registry-state.mjs` — verifies that published npm packages have correct dist-tag assignments and detects orphaned or mispointed tags - Added `scripts/verify-release-registry-state.test.mjs` — test coverage for the verification logic - Updated `scripts/release.sh` to include canary dist-tag safety checks before publishing - Updated `.github/workflows/pr.yml` to run registry verification as a CI step - Updated `doc/PUBLISHING.md` and `doc/RELEASING.md` with the new verification workflow ## Verification - `pnpm test` — all tests pass including new verification script tests - `node scripts/verify-release-registry-state.mjs` — runs against the live npm registry and reports current state - CI: the new PR workflow step runs on every PR push ## Risks - Low risk. This is additive CI and tooling — no runtime code changes. The registry verification is read-only (queries npm, does not publish). The release script changes add safety checks that abort before publishing if state is unexpected. ## Model Used Codex GPT 5.4 high via Paperclip. ## 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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
d9f540c331 |
[codex] Refresh docs and agent skills (#4693)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through a company-scoped control plane > - Contributors and agents need docs and skills that match the current V1 behavior > - The source branch included documentation updates alongside implementation work > - Keeping docs and skill guidance separate makes the implementation PR easier to review > - This pull request refreshes the V1 docs and agent-operating guidance without changing runtime behavior > - The benefit is current contributor guidance that can merge independently from code changes ## What Changed - Refreshed V1 product, goal, implementation, database, and development documentation. - Updated the Paperclip heartbeat skill guidance and create-agent skill references. - Added the Paperclip plan-to-task conversion skill. - Updated release changelog skill guidance. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` passed in the PR worktree after the Greptile fix. - Greptile Review passed on head `673317ed` with zero unresolved review threads. - GitHub PR checks passed on head `673317ed`: `policy`, `verify`, `e2e`, and `security/snyk (cryppadotta)`. ## Risks - Low runtime risk because this branch only changes docs and skill guidance. - Documentation may need follow-up wording adjustments if reviewers want a different framing for V1 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, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled terminal/GitHub workflow. Exact runtime context window was not exposed by the harness. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
fda296ee4f |
[codex] Add configurable liveness auto-recovery controls (#4587)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Heartbeat liveness recovery decides when stalled issue trees need manager-visible follow-up. > - Automatic recovery issue creation is useful, but operators need instance-level controls for how aggressive it is. > - Without controls, recovery behavior is harder to tune for local development, production operations, and noisy edge cases. > - This pull request adds configurable liveness auto-recovery settings across shared contracts, API routes, services, and the instance experimental settings UI. > - The benefit is that operators can keep liveness findings advisory or enable bounded recovery automation with explicit intervals and lookback windows. ## What Changed - Added shared types and validators for liveness auto-recovery settings. - Extended instance settings routes and services to persist and validate the new controls. - Wired heartbeat/recovery services to honor enablement, minimum interval, and lookback settings. - Added UI controls for liveness recovery under instance experimental settings. - Covered the new server behavior with instance settings and liveness escalation tests. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` ## Risks - Moderate behavioral risk because recovery automation timing changes when enabled; defaults keep existing advisory behavior unless the setting is turned on. - No database migration in this PR; settings are stored through the existing instance settings path. > 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 model with tool use and local command 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 - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
82e257c7ba |
Cancel stale queued heartbeats when issue graph changes (PAP-2314) (#4534)
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
df425fde96 |
Present ordered sub-issues as a workflow checklist (#4523)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators use issue detail pages and child issue lists to understand multi-step execution plans. > - Ordered sub-issues currently read like a flat table, so dependency chains and current next steps are harder to scan. > - The branch work adds a workflow-oriented presentation for child issues without changing the single-assignee task model. > - This pull request makes ordered sub-issues read more like a progress checklist while preserving normal issue list controls. > - The benefit is that operators can see completed steps, active work, blocked follow-ups, and dependency order at a glance. ## What Changed - Added workflow sorting utilities and tests for dependency-aware child issue ordering. - Added sub-issue progress summary, checklist numbering, current-step affordances, blocker context, and done-state de-emphasis in the issue list UI. - Wired issue detail sub-issue panels to use the workflow sort/progress checklist presentation. - Updated issue service behavior/tests for child issue ordering inputs used by the UI. - Added a Storybook visual review fixture and screenshot helper for the sub-issue workflow checklist surface. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-detail-subissues.test.ts ui/src/lib/workflow-sort.test.ts` - Result: 6 test files passed, 55 tests passed, 34 embedded Postgres issue-service tests skipped because `@embedded-postgres/darwin-x64` is unavailable on this host. - Visual review: generated Storybook screenshots from the existing local Storybook server on port 6006 with `node scripts/screenshot-subissues.mjs /tmp/pap-2189-subissues-screens http://localhost:6006`. - Screenshot artifacts: - Desktop dark:  - Desktop light:  - Mobile dark:  - Mobile light:  - Local Storybook note: starting a second Storybook process selected port 6008 because 6006 was occupied, then Vite failed with an esbuild host/binary version mismatch (`0.25.12` host vs `0.27.3` binary). The already-running Storybook server on 6006 served the fixture successfully for screenshots. ## Risks - Medium UI risk: the issue list now has additional sub-issue-specific visual states, so dense lists should be checked for spacing and scanability. - Low ordering risk: workflow sorting is covered by focused unit tests, but unusual dependency topologies may still need reviewer attention. - No migration risk: this PR does not add database migrations or touch `pnpm-lock.yaml`. > 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/git/GitHub workflow. Context window is runtime-provided and not exposed in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
5a0c1979cf | [codex] Add runtime lifecycle recovery and live issue visibility (#4419) | ||
|
Devin Foley
|
e4995bbb1c |
Add SSH environment support (#4358)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The environments subsystem already models execution environments, but before this branch there was no end-to-end SSH-backed runtime path for agents to actually run work against a remote box > - That meant agents could be configured around environment concepts without a reliable way to execute adapter sessions remotely, sync workspace state, and preserve run context across supported adapters > - We also need environment selection to participate in normal Paperclip control-plane behavior: agent defaults, project/issue selection, route validation, and environment probing > - Because this capability is still experimental, the UI surface should be easy to hide and easy to remove later without undoing the underlying implementation > - This pull request adds SSH environment execution support across the runtime, adapters, routes, schema, and tests, then puts the visible environment-management UI behind an experimental flag > - The benefit is that we can validate real SSH-backed agent execution now while keeping the user-facing controls safely gated until the feature is ready to come out of experimentation ## What Changed - Added SSH-backed execution target support in the shared adapter runtime, including remote workspace preparation, skill/runtime asset sync, remote session handling, and workspace restore behavior after runs. - Added SSH execution coverage for supported local adapters, plus remote execution tests across Claude, Codex, Cursor, Gemini, OpenCode, and Pi. - Added environment selection and environment-management backend support needed for SSH execution, including route/service work, validation, probing, and agent default environment persistence. - Added CLI support for SSH environment lab verification and updated related docs/tests. - Added the `enableEnvironments` experimental flag and gated the environment UI behind it on company settings, agent configuration, and project configuration surfaces. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/cursor-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/gemini-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/opencode-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/pi-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/new-agent-hire-payload.test.ts ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - Manual verification on a branch-local dev server: - enabled the experimental flag - created an SSH environment - created a Linux Claude agent using that environment - confirmed a run executed on the Linux box and synced workspace changes back ## Risks - Medium: this touches runtime execution flow across multiple adapters, so regressions would likely show up in remote session setup, workspace sync, or environment selection precedence. - The UI flag reduces exposure, but the underlying runtime and route changes are still substantial and rely on migration correctness. - The change set is broad across adapters, control-plane services, migrations, and UI gating, so review should pay close attention to environment-selection precedence and remote workspace lifecycle behavior. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via Paperclip's local Codex adapter, GPT-5-class coding model with tool use and code execution in the local repo workspace. The local adapter does not surface a more specific public model version string in this branch 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 - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
b69b563aa8 |
[codex] Fix stale issue execution run locks (#4258)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so issue checkout and execution ownership are core safety contracts. > - The affected subsystem is the issue service and route layer that gates agent writes by `checkoutRunId` and `executionRunId`. > - PAP-1982 exposed a stale-lock failure mode where a terminal heartbeat run could leave `executionRunId` pinned after checkout ownership had moved or been cleared. > - That stale execution lock could reject legitimate PATCH/comment/release requests from the rightful assignee after a harness restart. > - This pull request centralizes terminal-run cleanup, applies it before ownership-gated writes, and adds a board-only recovery endpoint for operator intervention. > - The benefit is that crashed or terminal runs no longer strand issues behind stale execution locks, while live execution locks still block conflicting writes. ## What Changed - Added `issueService.clearExecutionRunIfTerminal()` to atomically lock the issue/run rows and clear terminal or missing execution-run locks. - Reused stale execution-lock cleanup from checkout, `assertCheckoutOwner()`, and `release()`. - Allowed the same assigned agent/current run to adopt an unowned `in_progress` checkout after stale execution-lock cleanup. - Updated release to clear `executionRunId`, `executionAgentNameKey`, and `executionLockedAt`. - Added board-only `POST /api/issues/:id/admin/force-release` with company access checks, optional `clearAssignee=true`, and `issue.admin_force_release` audit logging. - Added embedded Postgres service tests and route integration tests for stale-lock recovery, release behavior, and admin force-release authorization/audit behavior. - Documented the new force-release API in `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts` passed. - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `git diff --check` passed. - `pnpm lint` could not run because this repo has no `lint` command. - Full `pnpm test:run` completed with 4 failures in existing route suites: `approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts` (2), `issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts` (1), and `issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts` (1). Those same files pass when run isolated and when run together with the new stale-lock route test, so this appears to be a whole-suite ordering/mock-isolation issue outside this patch path. ## Risks - Medium: this changes ownership-gated write behavior. The new adoption path is limited to the current run, the current assignee, `in_progress` issues, and rows with no checkout owner after terminal-lock cleanup. - Low: the admin force-release endpoint is board-only and company-scoped, but misuse can intentionally clear a live lock. It writes an audit event with prior lock IDs. - No schema or migration changes. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent (`gpt-5`), agentic coding with terminal/tool use and local test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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 |
