forked from farhoodlabs/paperclip
1a1c57461fcde9f68c0d12fefc65bfb128d58c10
13 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Dotta
|
424e81d087 |
Improve operator workflow QoL (#5291)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane operators use repeatedly to supervise agent companies. > - Common operator workflows depend on fast scanning of inboxes, issue sidebars, workspaces, cost totals, and runtime services. > - Several small UI and service gaps made those workflows slower or less clear. > - This pull request groups the operator-facing QoL changes that can stand alone from recovery and adapter work. > - The benefit is a denser, clearer board experience for issue triage and workspace operation. ## What Changed - Added inbox assignee/project grouping and issue list token/runtime totals. - Improved issue properties with removable blocker chips and workspace task links. - Improved execution workspace layout, runtime controls, issues tab default, and stopped-port reuse behavior. - Added mobile markdown/routine dialog fixes, page title company names, sidebar polish, and dashboard run task label cleanup. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceRuntimeControls.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts` ## Risks - Medium UI risk because this touches several operator surfaces. The branch is intentionally grouped around workflow/QoL files and keeps the file count below the Greptile limit. ## 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
|
d6bee62f02 |
Fix Cloud tenant issue identifier routes (#5196)
## Summary - Allow Cloud tenant issue identifiers with alphanumeric prefixes, such as `PC1897-1`, to normalize as issue references. - Resolve those identifiers through issue detail/update routes, active run/live run polling, activity, costs, and `issueService.getById`. - Keep UI issue-link parsing aligned so tenant links normalize back to `/issues/<IDENTIFIER>`. ## Root Cause Cloud tenant issue prefixes include digits from the stack-id hash. The app-side route normalization still accepted only all-letter prefixes, so `/api/issues/PC1897-1` skipped identifier lookup and fell through as a non-UUID id. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-references.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-reference.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-identifier-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-live-run-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check` Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
c4269bab59 |
Add workflow interaction cancellation and issue cost summaries (#4862)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates work through issue-thread interactions, run history, and cost telemetry. > - Operators need workflow prompts to be cancellable and costs to be visible at the issue level. > - The earlier rollup mixed this workflow/cost work with database backups, reliability recovery, thread scaling, and settings polish. > - This pull request isolates the interaction and cost surfaces into a reviewable slice. > - The backend now supports cancelling pending question interactions and summarizing issue-tree costs. > - The UI component layer can render cancelled questions and interleave activity with run ledger rows. ## What Changed - Added `cancelled` as an issue-thread interaction status and result shape for question interactions. - Added the board-only `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/cancel` route and service implementation. - Added issue-tree cost summary support in the cost service and `/issues/:id/cost-summary` API route. - Extended shared cost exports and UI API/query keys for issue cost summaries. - Updated `IssueThreadInteractionCard` and `IssueRunLedger` components for cancelled questions, issue cost surfaces, and activity/run interleaving. - Added focused server and component regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - Result: 4 test files passed, 45 tests passed. - UI screenshots not included because this PR updates reusable components and API surfaces without wiring a new page-level layout. ## Risks - Adds a new interaction terminal status; clients that switch exhaustively on interaction status may need to handle `cancelled`. - Issue-tree cost summaries use recursive issue traversal and should be watched on unusually large issue trees. - Page-level issue detail wiring is intentionally left to the board QoL/issue-detail branch to keep this PR narrow. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
a957394420 |
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [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
|
7a329fb8bb |
Harden API route authorization boundaries (#4122)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - The REST API is the control-plane boundary for companies, agents, plugins, adapters, costs, invites, and issue mutations. > - Several routes still relied on broad board or company access checks without consistently enforcing the narrower actor, company, and active-checkout boundaries those operations require. > - That can allow agents or non-admin users to mutate sensitive resources outside the intended governance path. > - This pull request hardens the route authorization layer and adds regression coverage for the audited API surfaces. > - The benefit is tighter multi-company isolation, safer plugin and adapter administration, and stronger enforcement of active issue ownership. ## What Changed - Added route-level authorization checks for budgets, plugin administration/scoped routes, adapter management, company import/export, direct agent creation, invite test resolution, and issue mutation/write surfaces. - Enforced active checkout ownership for agent-authenticated issue mutations, while preserving explicit management overrides for permitted managers. - Restricted sensitive adapter and plugin management operations to instance-admin or properly scoped actors. - Tightened company portability and invite probing routes so agents cannot cross company boundaries. - Updated access constants and the Company Access UI copy for the new active-checkout management grant. - Added focused regression tests covering cross-company denial, agent self-mutation denial, admin-only operations, and active checkout ownership. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and fixed validation fallout from the rebase: heartbeat-context route ordering and a company import/export e2e fixture that now opts out of direct-hire approval before using direct agent creation. - Updated onboarding and signoff e2e setup to create seed agents through `/agent-hires` plus board approval, so they remain compatible with the approval-gated new-agent default. - Addressed Greptile feedback by removing a duplicate company export API alias, avoiding N+1 reporting-chain lookups in active-checkout override checks, allowing agent mutations on unassigned `in_progress` issues, and blocking NAT64 invite-probe targets. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts server/src/__tests__/adapter-routes-authz.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/invite-test-resolution-route.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-adapter-validation-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/invite-test-resolution-route.test.ts` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter ui typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm test:e2e -- tests/e2e/onboarding.spec.ts tests/e2e/signoff-policy.spec.ts` - `pnpm test:e2e -- tests/e2e/signoff-policy.spec.ts` - `pnpm test:run` was also run. It failed under default full-suite parallelism with two order-dependent failures in `plugin-routes-authz.test.ts` and `routines-e2e.test.ts`; both files passed when rerun directly together with `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-e2e.test.ts`. ## Risks - Medium risk: this changes authorization behavior across multiple sensitive API surfaces, so callers that depended on broad board/company access may now receive `403` or `409` until they use the correct governance path. - Direct agent creation now respects the company-level board-approval requirement; integrations that need pending hires should use `/api/companies/:companyId/agent-hires`. - Active in-progress issue mutations now require checkout ownership or an explicit management override, which may reveal workflow assumptions in older automation. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-using workflow with local shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and repository tests. ## 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
5f45712846 |
Sync/master post pap1497 followups 2026 04 15 (#3779)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The board depends on issue, inbox, cost, and company-skill surfaces to stay accurate and fast while agents are actively working > - The PAP-1497 follow-up branch exposed a few rough edges in those surfaces: stale active-run state on completed issues, missing creator filters, oversized issue payload scans, and placeholder issue-route parsing > - Those gaps make the control plane harder to trust because operators can see misleading run state, miss the right subset of work, or pay extra query/render cost on large issue records > - This pull request tightens those follow-ups across server and UI code, and adds regression coverage for the affected paths > - The benefit is a more reliable issue workflow, safer high-volume cost aggregation, and clearer board/operator navigation ## What Changed - Added the `v2026.415.0` release changelog entry. - Fixed stale issue-run presentation after completion and reused the shared issue-path parser so literal route placeholders no longer become issue links. - Added creator filters to the Issues page and Inbox, including persisted filter-state normalization and regression coverage. - Bounded issue detail/list project-mention scans and trimmed large issue-list payload fields to keep issue reads lighter. - Hardened company-skill list projection and cost/finance aggregation so large markdown blobs and large summed values do not leak into list responses or overflow 32-bit casts. - Added targeted server/UI regression tests for company skills, costs/finance, issue mention scanning, creator filters, inbox normalization, and issue reference parsing. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-filters.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-reference.test.ts` - `gh pr checks 3779` Current pass set on the PR head: `policy`, `verify`, `e2e`, `security/snyk (cryppadotta)`, `Greptile Review` ## Risks - Creator filter options are derived from the currently loaded issue/agent data, so very sparse result sets may not surface every historical creator until they appear in the active dataset. - Cost/finance aggregate casts now use `double precision`; that removes the current overflow risk, but future schema changes should keep large-value aggregation behavior under review. - Issue detail mention scanning now skips comment-body scans on the detail route, so any consumer that relied on comment-only project mentions there would need to fetch them separately. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with terminal tool use and local code execution in the Paperclip workspace. Exact internal model ID/context-window exposure is not surfaced 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 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
|
7f893ac4ec |
[codex] Harden execution reliability and heartbeat tooling (#3679)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep regressions visible > - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area > - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch overlapping issue APIs > - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat, telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch > - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting ## What Changed - Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and blocked-to-todo wake resumption - Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads, compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces - Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material - Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation from local state, and repo verification follow-ups - Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were dropped during branch reconstruction ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts` - `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`, `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they are noted as environment-limited ## Risks - Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow rather than isolated UI polish - Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure modes and not just reshaping harness behavior ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning enabled, tool use and local code execution enabled ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [ ] 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
|
c566a9236c | fix: harden heartbeat and adapter runtime workflows | ||
|
dotta
|
fe21ab324b | test(server): isolate route modules in endpoint tests | ||
|
Dotta
|
728d9729ed | Fix budget auth and monthly spend rollups | ||
|
Dotta
|
5f2c2ee0e2 | Harden budget enforcement and migration startup | ||
|
Dotta
|
76e6cc08a6 | feat(costs): add billing, quota, and budget control plane | ||
|
Sai Shankar
|
656b4659fc |
refactor(quota): move provider quota logic into adapter layer, add unit tests
- Extract all Anthropic credential/API logic into claude-local/src/server/quota.ts - Extract all OpenAI/WHAM credential/API logic into codex-local/src/server/quota.ts - Add optional getQuotaWindows() to ServerAdapterModule in adapter-utils - Rewrite quota-windows.ts as a 29-line thin aggregator with zero provider knowledge - Wire getQuotaWindows into adapter registry for claude-local and codex-local - Add 47 unit tests covering toPercent, secondsToWindowLabel, WHAM normalization, readClaudeToken, readCodexToken, fetchClaudeQuota, fetchCodexQuota, fetchWithTimeout - Add 8 unit tests covering parseDateRange validation and byProvider pro-rata math Adding a third provider now requires only touching that provider's adapter. |