## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The board UI is the control surface for issues, projects, agents,
goals, workspaces, and operator settings.
> - The existing navigation and list surfaces make several
high-frequency workflows feel harder to scan than they should,
especially around projects and agents.
> - The product direction is to improve those surfaces without breaking
the existing route model or forcing a new IA on every operator at once.
> - This pull request now keeps the dependent IA, project identity, and
agent-list visual refresh work together while the Issue-to-Task copy
migration is split into #7651.
> - The benefit is a clearer left nav, better project identity, denser
agent/project list rows, and brand-aligned status treatment while
preserving the classic default experience behind a flag.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #7645
Refs #7651
Internal planning/work references: PAP-53, PAP-56, PAP-58, PAP-59,
PAP-60, PAP-61, PAP-68, PAP-69, PAP-70, PAP-71, PAP-72, PAP-75, PAP-76,
PAP-80, PAP-85, PAP-86, PAP-87, PAP-88, PAP-89.
## What Changed
- Adds `enableStreamlinedLeftNavigation`, defaulting off, and gates
sidebar presentation so classic navigation remains the default.
- Adds project icon persistence, validation, portability, picker UI, and
`ProjectTile` rendering while defaulting new projects to neutral gray.
- Adds projects-list task-count and budget summary data with focused
server/shared/UI coverage.
- Refreshes agent list rows, row actions, active/recent sidebar
behavior, and status capsule/chip styling for the approved brand state
system.
- Removes the placeholder Conference room and Artifacts nav/routes from
the finalized experimental nav direction.
- Removes `pnpm-lock.yaml` and the Issue-to-Task copy migration from
this PR diff; the copy migration now lives in #7651.
## Verification
- Existing branch verification from the authored commits: UI typecheck,
targeted unit tests, and light/dark visual checks for `/agents`, agent
detail, and design-guide status states.
- Maintainer cleanup verification on `75e34e5`: `git diff --check
origin/master...HEAD` passed, the `design/` diff is empty, and the PR
diff is 61 files, below Greptile's 100-file review limit.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` passed.
- `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx` passed: 1 file, 8 tests.
- CI and Greptile should rerun on the latest push.
## Risks
- Broad UI surface area: the experimental flag keeps the classic nav
default, but changed shared components such as `EntityRow`,
`ProjectTile`, and agent status badges could affect multiple pages.
- Database migration: `projects.icon` is additive and nullable, but
migration ordering and portability import/export must stay aligned.
- The Issue-to-Task copy migration is now separated into #7651, so
reviewers should evaluate this PR as IA/project/agent presentation work
only.
- Visual regressions are possible across smaller widths because the PR
intentionally changes dense list-row layouts.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 4.8 assisted the original feature commits.
Paperclip-Paperclip agents assisted some planning/design commits. Codex
/ GPT-5-class coding agent with shell, GitHub CLI, and repository access
performed this PR-readiness cleanup and split.
## 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>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com>
## 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>
scotttong
