farhoodlabs/paperclip
8
0
Fork 2
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
2,611 Commits 5 Branches 1 Tag
daa1324e5ffb9e9bbe02fb042444829285e44190
Commit Graph

10 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Devin Foley d9f91576a0 Add accepted-plan decomposition exact-once guards and UI state (#6831) 
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so
planning approvals and child-issue fan-out are part of the core
control-plane loop.
> - Accepted plans are supposed to be a safe bridge from planning into
execution, especially when agents wake from review decisions and reuse
isolated workspaces.
> - The duplicate-subtask incident showed that an accepted plan revision
could be interpreted more than once across overlapping runs, which broke
the single-source-of-truth model for issue decomposition.
> - Fixing that required tightening the backend contract first:
accepted-plan decomposition needs an exact-once fingerprint, durable
claim state, and retry-safe child creation.
> - Once that backend behavior existed, the board still needed
visibility into what happened, so the issue detail view needed a
dedicated decomposition section instead of forcing operators to
reconstruct child creation from raw activity.
> - This pull request adds the exact-once decomposition primitive,
hardens wake routing and regressions around the incident, and surfaces
decomposition state in the UI so future incidents are both prevented and
easier to inspect.

## What Changed

- Added accepted-plan decomposition semantics to
`doc/execution-semantics.md`, including the exact-once fingerprint,
durable claim/result expectations, and retry/resume behavior.
- Added persistent accepted-plan decomposition claims in the backend,
including schema, shared types/validators, service logic, and issue
routes for creating and listing decomposition state.
- Hardened heartbeat routing so an accepted-plan continuation stays
scoped to the relevant planning issue instead of opportunistically
re-decomposing another accepted issue on the same assignee.
- Added regression coverage for the original failure modes: concurrent
same-parent retries, cross-issue accepted-plan isolation, and partial
child recreation under the same fingerprint.
- Added the `Plan decomposition` issue-detail section plus supporting
API/query-key/activity formatting updates so operators can see revision
status, owner, child counts, and the linked child issues directly in the
UI.
- Included the small follow-up UI fix so the decomposition section still
renders when the issue work mode is no longer `planning`.

## Verification

- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t
"lists persisted decompositions with child issue summaries"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t
"accepted plan decomposition"
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts`
- Manual UI path: create a planning issue without an isolated execution
workspace, add a `plan` document, accept the `request_confirmation`, let
Paperclip create child issues, then reopen the parent issue detail page
and confirm the `Plan decomposition` section shows the accepted
revision, status, idempotent-claim badge, and child links.
- Separate follow-up bug noted during manual UI validation: accepting a
plan on an issue whose run never records `workspace_finalize` is tracked
in `PAPA-445` and is not part of this PR’s fix scope.

## Risks

- This adds a new migration and a large Drizzle snapshot update;
reviewers should confirm the schema shape and generated metadata match
the intended decomposition table.
- The exact-once claim changes sit on the accepted-plan fan-out path, so
regressions there could block legitimate child creation or mis-handle
retries if the claim state machine is wrong.
- The new UI only appears when decomposition records exist; reviewers
should use the manual verification path above rather than expecting
existing issues on a stale local instance to show the section
automatically.
- `PAPA-445` remains an open follow-up for the `workspace_finalize`
accept gate when a planning handoff never records finalize; that bug can
interfere with reproducing the UI flow on isolated workspaces but does
not change the correctness of the exact-once decomposition feature
itself.

> Checked `ROADMAP.md`: this PR is a bug fix / control-plane hardening
change for accepted-plan decomposition, not a new uncoordinated roadmap
feature.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` (GPT-5-based coding agent;
exact backend model ID/context window not exposed in the run context),
with repository tool use, shell execution, and code-editing
capabilities.

<img width="806" height="1069" alt="Screenshot 2026-05-27 at 11 05
48 PM"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5b00b670-96cd-4470-b0a3-581743bcae28"
/>


## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
 2026-05-28 23:30:18 -07:00
Dotta b7545823be [codex] Add document annotations and comments (#6733) 
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through issues, documents,
runs, and durable company-scoped state.
> - Issue documents are where agents and operators capture plans,
handoffs, and work products.
> - Before this change, document collaboration could only happen through
whole-document edits and detached issue comments.
> - Inline document annotations need stable anchors, revision-aware
persistence, and UI affordances that do not break existing document
editing.
> - This pull request adds company-scoped document annotation threads,
comments, anchor snapshots, API routes, and board UI.
> - The benefit is that operators and agents can discuss specific
document passages without losing context as documents evolve.

## What Changed

- Added document annotation tables, schema exports, shared types,
validators, anchor hashing, and text-anchor helpers.
- Added server-side document annotation services and issue routes for
listing, creating, commenting, resolving, and reopening annotation
threads.
- Included annotation summaries in relevant issue document reads and
backup/recovery document workspace behavior.
- Added React UI for inline document highlights, comment panels, mobile
sheet behavior, deep-link focus, and resolved/open filtering.
- Added annotation design artifacts, Storybook coverage, screenshots,
and a screenshot helper script.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` and
renumbered the annotation migration from `0085_old_swarm` to
`0091_old_swarm`; the SQL uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards so environments
that previously applied the old migration number can safely apply the
new one.
- Adjusted the new annotation UI tests to use a local async flush helper
because this workspace's React 19.2.4 export does not expose
`React.act`.

## Verification

- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
packages/shared/src/document-anchors.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/document-annotations-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/DocumentAnnotationLayer.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/document-annotation-hash.test.ts
ui/src/lib/document-annotation-selection.test.ts`
- Confirmed `git diff --check` passes.
- Confirmed no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` files are
included in the PR diff.

## Risks

- Medium risk: this adds new persisted annotation tables and routes
across db/shared/server/ui.
- Migration risk is reduced by moving the branch migration to
`0091_old_swarm` after upstream `0090_resource_memberships` and keeping
the SQL idempotent for old `0085_old_swarm` adopters.
- UI risk is mostly around text range anchoring and panel positioning
across long documents, folded content, and mobile layouts; the PR
includes focused unit coverage and design screenshots.

> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-using software engineering
mode. Context window size is not exposed in this Paperclip runtime.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
 2026-05-26 06:41:23 -07:00
Dotta 38c185fb8b [codex] Add agent permissions and controls plan (#6386) 
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies by keeping
task ownership, approvals, and operator control inside one control
plane.
> - Agent permissions and plugin-hosted company settings sit on the
boundary between autonomy and governance.
> - V1 needs scoped task assignment rules, plugin extension points, and
clearer company access surfaces without weakening company boundaries.
> - The branch builds the core authorization service, plugin SDK/host
APIs, and UI simplifications needed to support those controls.
> - Paperclip EE plugin surfaces were intentionally moved out of this
core PR per review direction, so this PR now carries only the public
core/plugin infrastructure work.
> - The latest updates preserve the PAP-9937 branch changes that belong
in this PR, remove the `design/` artifacts, and exclude the experimental
`plugin-briefs` package.
> - Greptile feedback was applied through the authorization/audit paths
and the final cleanup commit was re-reviewed at 5/5 with no unresolved
Greptile threads.
> - The benefit is safer assignment control with extension hooks for
richer permission products while preserving simple defaults for normal
operators.

## What Changed

- Added scoped task-assignment authorization decisions and routed
issue/agent assignment mutations through the authorization service.
- Added plugin SDK and host APIs for company settings slots,
authorization policy/grant management, assignment previews, and bridge
invocation scope propagation.
- Simplified core company access UI and moved advanced controls behind
plugin-provided settings surfaces.
- Added retry-now affordances for blocked issue next-step notices.
- Added protected-assignment enforcement for persisted
agent/project/issue policies, including explicit-grant fallback
behavior.
- Added incremental principal-access compatibility backfill for active
agent memberships and role-default human permission grants.
- Added the Markdown code block wrap action fix from the latest branch
changes.
- Removed `design/` artifacts from the PR and removed
`packages/plugins/plugin-briefs` from the final diff.
- Addressed Greptile feedback for plugin actor sanitization, legacy
membership handling, audit pagination, unknown grant-scope metadata, and
startup test mocks.

## Verification

- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 2 files passed, 54
tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` -> 3 files passed, 62
tests passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-access-authorization-host-services.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` -> 3 files
passed, 28 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` -> passed.
- `git diff --check` -> passed.
- `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs` -> passed.
- `CI=true pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` -> passed
with no lockfile update.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.interaction.test.tsx` -> 1 test passed.
- `git ls-files design packages/plugins/plugin-briefs | wc -l` -> 0.
- GitHub CI on `40cd83b53` -> all checks passed, merge state `CLEAN`.
- Greptile on `40cd83b53` -> 5/5, 102 files reviewed, 0
comments/annotations added, 0 unresolved review threads.
- Confirmed the PR diff contains no `design/`,
`packages/plugins/plugin-briefs`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, or
`.github/workflows` changes.

## Risks

- Medium: task assignment authorization paths are behaviorally stricter
for protected/private policy data, so existing plugin-authored policies
may block assignment until explicit grants or approval flows are
configured.
- Medium: plugin-host authorization APIs expand the surface area
available to trusted plugins and need careful review for company
scoping.
- Low: startup now performs a principal-access compatibility backfill,
but the migration and runtime backfill use conflict-tolerant inserts.

> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled workflow with shell,
git, and GitHub CLI access.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
 2026-05-22 08:12:52 -05:00
Dotta c91a062326 [codex] Runtime control-plane fixes (#6380) 
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through a server-side control plane
> - That control plane depends on reliable issue state transitions,
plugin lifecycle behavior, import limits, and startup/shutdown handling
> - Several small runtime fixes had accumulated on the working branch
and were mixed with larger feature work
> - Keeping them separate makes the correctness fixes reviewable and
mergeable without waiting for cloud-sync UI work
> - This pull request groups the server/runtime control-plane fixes into
one standalone branch
> - The benefit is a tighter, safer runtime baseline for retries,
imports, plugin migrations, feedback flushing, and trusted cloud import
handling

## What Changed

- Fixed updated issue list pagination sorting and scheduled retry
comment handling.
- Re-applied pending plugin migrations during hot reload and fixed
plugin-schema worktree seed restore.
- Hardened public tenant DB startup, portable import body limits,
trusted cloud import errors, and trusted cloud tenant import mutation
access.
- Expired stale request confirmations after user comments.
- Added feedback export shutdown hardening so database-unavailable flush
loops stop cleanly.
- Guarded plugin worker `error` event emission when no listener is
registered.

## Verification

- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build`
- `npm run install --prefix
node_modules/.pnpm/sqlite3@5.1.7/node_modules/sqlite3`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-lifecycle-restart.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/body-limits.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/feedback-flush-controller.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/error-handler.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/board-mutation-guard.test.ts
packages/db/src/backup-lib.test.ts` initially exposed local setup issues
and two 5s test timeouts.
- Rerun after local prereq build: `pnpm exec vitest run --testTimeout
15000 server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/feedback-flush-controller.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` passed.
- Some embedded Postgres-backed tests skipped on this host because local
Postgres init was unavailable.

## Risks

- Runtime-touching branch: startup/shutdown and issue interaction
behavior should be reviewed carefully.
- The feedback export change disables repeated flush attempts only for
database connection-refused failures; other upload failures still log
normally.
- The plugin worker error guard avoids process crashes from unhandled
EventEmitter errors but may hide errors from code paths that expected an
emitted listener.

> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with local shell/git/tool use.
Exact hosted model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the
local Paperclip adapter runtime.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
 2026-05-20 10:37:11 -05:00
Dotta d734bd43d1 [codex] Roll up May 17 branch changes (#6210) 
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so agent
work needs visible ownership, recovery, and operator controls.
> - This local branch had accumulated several related control-plane
reliability and operator-experience fixes across recovery actions,
watchdog folding, model-profile defaults, mentions, markdown editing,
plugin launchers, and small UI polish.
> - The branch needed to be converted into a PR against the current
`origin/master` without losing dirty work or including lockfile/workflow
churn.
> - The safest standalone shape is a single rollup PR because the
recovery/server/UI files overlap heavily across the local commits and
splitting would create avoidable conflicts.
> - This pull request replays the local branch onto latest
`origin/master`, preserves the uncommitted work as logical commits, and
adds a Zod 4 validator compatibility fix found during verification.
> - The benefit is that the May 17 local branch can be reviewed and
merged as one coherent, conflict-free branch under the 100-file Greptile
limit.

## What Changed

- Rebased the local May 17 branch work onto current `origin/master` in a
dedicated worktree.
- Preserved and committed previously dirty changes for recovery retry
handling, plugin/sidebar launcher polish, and `.herenow` ignores.
- Added recovery-action behavior for returning source issues to `todo`
when retrying source-scoped recovery.
- Included the existing local recovery/liveness/watchdog fold, Codex
cheap-profile, markdown/mention, duplicate-agent, and UI polish commits
from the branch.
- Normalized shared validator `z.record(...)` schemas to explicit
string-key records for Zod 4 compatibility.
- Confirmed the PR has no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`
changes and stays below the 100-file Greptile limit.

## Verification

- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`
- `npm run install` in
`node_modules/.pnpm/sqlite3@5.1.7/node_modules/sqlite3` to build the
local native sqlite3 binding after installing with scripts disabled
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
packages/shared/src/project-mentions.test.ts
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx
ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/duplicate-agent-payload.test.ts
ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx`
- First pass: 13 files passed with 201 passing tests; 3 server files
failed before sqlite3 native binding was built.
- After rebuilding sqlite3:
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts`,
`server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts`
passed/loaded; embedded Postgres tests were skipped by the local host
guard.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`

## Risks

- Medium risk: this is a broad rollup PR across recovery semantics,
server tests, shared validators, and UI surfaces.
- Some embedded Postgres tests skipped locally due the host guard, so CI
should provide the stronger database-backed signal.
- UI changes were covered by component tests, but no browser screenshot
was captured in this PR creation pass.
- This branch may overlap with existing recovery/liveness PR work; merge
this PR independently or restack/close overlapping branches rather than
merging duplicate implementations together.

> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, tool-enabled local repository
and GitHub workflow, medium reasoning effort.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
 2026-05-17 17:15:06 -05:00
Dotta 0808b388ee [codex] Add source-scoped recovery actions (#5599) 
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where work
must end with a clear disposition rather than ambiguous agent liveness.
> - Recovery currently detects stalled or missing-next-step issues, but
source issue recovery can become split across child recovery issues,
blockers, and comments.
> - That makes it harder for operators and agents to see who owns
recovery and what exact action is needed on the original issue.
> - Source-scoped recovery actions give the original issue a first-class
active recovery state with owner, evidence, wake policy, and resolution
outcome.
> - This pull request adds the recovery-action data model, backend
reconciliation and resolution APIs, and board UI indicators/actions.
> - The benefit is clearer stalled-work recovery without losing source
issue context or relying on comments as the liveness path.

## What Changed

- Added the `issue_recovery_actions` schema, shared
types/constants/validators, and an idempotent
`0084_issue_recovery_actions` migration ordered after current `master`
migrations.
- Updated stranded/missing-disposition recovery to create source-scoped
recovery actions, wake the recovery owner on the source issue, and avoid
locking the source issue for recovery-action wakes.
- Added API support for reading active recovery actions on issue
detail/list surfaces and resolving them with restored, blocked,
cancelled, or false-positive outcomes.
- Require blocked recovery resolutions to have an unresolved first-class
blocker, and removed the UI shortcut that could mark recovery blocked
without a blocker selection path.
- Surfaced recovery indicators/actions in the issue UI, blocker notices,
active run panels, issue rows, and Storybook coverage.
- Updated docs and focused tests for recovery semantics, ownership,
races, stale comments, and UI behavior.

## Verification

- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts`
— 5 files, 72 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including
migration numbering check.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- Follow-up verification after blocker-resolution guard: `pnpm exec
vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 3 files, 27 tests passed.
- Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed.
- UI states are available in
`ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`; screenshot
capture helper is `scripts/screenshot-recovery-card.cjs`.

## Risks

- Medium: recovery behavior changes from child recovery issue ownership
toward source-scoped actions, so operators may see stalled-work state in
new places.
- Migration risk is mitigated by using the next migration slot after
`master` and making the table/constraints/index creation idempotent for
anyone who previously applied the old branch-local
`0082_dizzy_master_mold` migration.
- Existing child recovery issue paths are still guarded for
already-created recovery issues, but new source-scoped flows should be
watched in CI and Greptile review.

> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use enabled for shell, Git,
GitHub, and local test execution. Context window not exposed by the
runtime.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
 2026-05-12 09:37:15 -05:00
Dotta 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>
 2026-04-30 13:57:25 -05:00
Dotta 1991ec9d6f [codex] Split backend control-plane QoL slice (#4700) 
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so
backend task ownership, recovery, review visibility, and company-scoped
limits need to stay enforceable without UI-only coupling.
> - Closed PR #4692 bundled those backend changes with UI workflow,
docs, skills, workflow, and lockfile churn.
> - PAP-2694 asks for a clean backend/control-plane slice from that
closed branch.
> - This branch starts from current `master` and mines only the `cli`,
`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, and `server` contracts/tests needed
for the backend behavior.
> - It explicitly excludes UI workflow/performance work,
`.github/workflows/pr.yml`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, docs, skills,
package-script, adapter UI build-config, and perf fixture script
changes; the only UI files are fixture/test updates required by the
tightened shared `Company` contract.
> - The benefit is a smaller reviewable PR that preserves the
control-plane fixes while staying under Greptile s 100-file review
limit.

## What Changed

- Added company-scoped attachment-size limits through DB
schema/migrations, shared company portability contracts, CLI
import/export coverage, and server attachment upload enforcement.
- Added productivity review service/API behavior for no-comment streak,
long-active, and high-churn review issues, including request-depth
clamping and issue summary exposure.
- Hardened issue ownership and recovery/control-plane paths: peer-agent
mutation denial, issue tree pause/resume behavior, stranded recovery
origins, and related activity/test coverage.
- Preserved related backend contract updates for routine timestamp
variables and managed agent instruction bundles because they live in
shared/server contracts from the source branch.
- Addressed Greptile feedback by making `Company.attachmentMaxBytes`
non-optional, simplifying review request-depth clamping, fixing the
migration final newline, and enforcing the process-level attachment cap
as the final ceiling for uploads.
- Added minimal company fixtures needed for repo-wide typecheck/build
and kept the PR to 66 changed files with forbidden/non-slice paths
excluded.

## Verification

- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD`
- `git diff --name-only origin/master..HEAD | wc -l` -> 66 files
- `git diff --name-only origin/master..HEAD -- .github/workflows/pr.yml
pnpm-lock.yaml package.json doc skills .agents scripts
packages/adapters` -> no output
- `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts
packages/shared/src/routine-variables.test.ts
packages/shared/src/adapter-types.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` -> 12 files, 147 tests
passed
- `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company-delete.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts` -> 3 files, 18
tests passed
- `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts` -> 1 file, 6 tests
passed
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck && pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/ui build`

## Risks

- Includes migrations `0073_shiny_salo.sql` and
`0074_striped_genesis.sql`; merge ordering matters if another PR adds
migrations first.
- This is intentionally backend-only apart from fixture/test updates
forced by shared type correctness; UI affordances from PR #4692 are not
present here and should land in separate UI slices.
- The worktree install emitted plugin SDK bin-link warnings for unbuilt
plugin packages, but the targeted tests and package typechecks completed
successfully.

> 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>
 2026-04-28 16:46:45 -05:00
Dotta 9a8d219949 [codex] Stabilize tests and local maintenance assets (#4423) 
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - A fast-moving control plane needs stable local tests and repeatable
local maintenance tools so contributors can safely split and review work
> - Several route suites needed stronger isolation, Codex manual model
selection needed a faster-mode option, and local browser cleanup missed
Playwright's headless shell binary
> - Storybook static output also needed to be preserved as a generated
review artifact from the working branch
> - This pull request groups the test/local-dev maintenance pieces so
they can be reviewed separately from product runtime changes
> - The benefit is more predictable contributor verification and cleaner
local maintenance without mixing these changes into feature PRs

## What Changed

- Added stable Vitest runner support and serialized route/authz test
isolation.
- Fixed workspace runtime authz route mocks and stabilized
Claude/company-import related assertions.
- Allowed Codex fast mode for manually selected models.
- Broadened the agent browser cleanup script to detect
`chrome-headless-shell` as well as Chrome for Testing.
- Preserved generated Storybook static output from the source branch.

## Verification

- `pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts
src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts --config vitest.config.ts`
from `server/` passed: 2 files, 19 tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run src/server/codex-args.test.ts --config
vitest.config.ts` from `packages/adapters/codex-local/` passed: 1 file,
3 tests.
- `bash -n scripts/kill-agent-browsers.sh &&
scripts/kill-agent-browsers.sh --dry` passed; dry-run detected
`chrome-headless-shell` processes without killing them.
- `test -f ui/storybook-static/index.html && test -f
ui/storybook-static/assets/forms-editors.stories-Dry7qwx2.js` passed.
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..pap-2228-test-local-maintenance --
. ':(exclude)ui/storybook-static'` passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts --config
cli/vitest.config.ts` did not complete in the isolated split worktree
because `paperclipai run` exited during build prep with `TS2688: Cannot
find type definition file for 'react'`; this appears to be caused by the
worktree dependency symlink setup, not the code under test.
- Confirmed this PR does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.

## Risks

- Medium risk: the stable Vitest runner changes how route/authz tests
are scheduled.
- Generated `ui/storybook-static` files are large and contain minified
third-party output; `git diff --check` reports whitespace inside those
generated assets, so reviewers may choose to drop or regenerate that
artifact before merge.
- No database migrations.

> 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, git, Paperclip
API, and GitHub CLI tool use in the local Paperclip workspace.

## 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: screenshot checklist item is not applicable to source UI behavior;
the included Storybook static output is generated artifact preservation
from the source branch.

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
 2026-04-24 15:11:42 -05:00
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>
 2026-04-21 20:15:11 -05:00