forked from farhoodlabs/paperclip
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>
This commit is contained in:
Dotta
@@ -83,6 +83,14 @@ export function IssueRow({
|
||||
{checklistStepNumber}.
|
||||
</span>
|
||||
) : null;
|
||||
const planningModeIndicator = issue.workMode === "planning" ? (
|
||||
<span
|
||||
className="ml-1.5 inline-flex shrink-0 items-center rounded-full border border-amber-500/60 bg-amber-500/15 px-2 py-0.5 text-[10px] font-medium text-amber-700 dark:text-amber-300"
|
||||
title="This issue is in planning mode."
|
||||
>
|
||||
Planning
|
||||
</span>
|
||||
) : null;
|
||||
|
||||
return (
|
||||
<Link
|
||||
@@ -104,6 +112,7 @@ export function IssueRow({
|
||||
<span className="flex shrink-0 items-center gap-1 pt-px sm:hidden">
|
||||
{mobileLeading ?? <StatusIcon status={issue.status} blockerAttention={issue.blockerAttention} className={selectedStatusClass} />}
|
||||
{productivityReviewIndicator}
|
||||
{planningModeIndicator}
|
||||
</span>
|
||||
<span className="flex min-w-0 flex-1 flex-col gap-1 sm:contents">
|
||||
<span className={cn("line-clamp-2 text-sm sm:order-2 sm:min-w-0 sm:flex-1 sm:truncate sm:line-clamp-none", titleClassName)}>
|
||||
@@ -128,6 +137,7 @@ export function IssueRow({
|
||||
<span className="shrink-0 font-mono text-xs text-muted-foreground">
|
||||
{identifier}
|
||||
</span>
|
||||
{planningModeIndicator}
|
||||
</>
|
||||
)}
|
||||
{mobileMeta ? (
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user