## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The environment/runtime layer decides where agent work executes and
how the control plane reaches those runtimes.
> - Today Paperclip can run locally and over SSH, but sandboxed
execution needs a first-class environment model instead of one-off
adapter behavior.
> - We also want sandbox providers to be pluggable so the core does not
hardcode every provider implementation.
> - This branch adds the Sandbox environment path, the provider
contract, and a deterministic fake provider plugin.
> - That required synchronized changes across shared contracts, plugin
SDK surfaces, server runtime orchestration, and the UI
environment/workspace flows.
> - The result is that sandbox execution becomes a core control-plane
capability while keeping provider implementations extensible and
testable.
## What Changed
- Added sandbox runtime support to the environment execution path,
including runtime URL discovery, sandbox execution targeting,
orchestration, and heartbeat integration.
- Added plugin-provider support for sandbox environments so providers
can be supplied via plugins instead of hardcoded server logic.
- Added the fake sandbox provider plugin with deterministic behavior
suitable for local and automated testing.
- Updated shared types, validators, plugin protocol definitions, and SDK
helpers to carry sandbox provider and workspace-runtime contracts across
package boundaries.
- Updated server routes and services so companies can create sandbox
environments, select them for work, and execute work through the sandbox
runtime path.
- Updated the UI environment and workspace surfaces to expose sandbox
environment configuration and selection.
- Added test coverage for sandbox runtime behavior, provider seams,
environment route guards, orchestration, and the fake provider plugin.
## Verification
- Ran locally before the final fixture-only scrub:
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`
- Ran locally after the final scrub amend:
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/runtime-api.test.ts`
- Reviewer spot checks:
- create a sandbox environment backed by the fake provider plugin
- run work through that environment
- confirm sandbox provider execution does not inherit host secrets
implicitly
## Risks
- This touches shared contracts, plugin SDK plumbing, server runtime
orchestration, and UI environment/workspace flows, so regressions would
likely show up as cross-layer mismatches rather than isolated type
errors.
- Runtime URL discovery and sandbox callback selection are sensitive to
host/bind configuration; if that logic is wrong, sandbox-backed
callbacks may fail even when execution succeeds.
- The fake provider plugin is intentionally deterministic and
test-oriented; future providers may expose capability gaps that this
branch does not yet cover.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent on a GPT-5-class backend in the
Paperclip/Codex harness. Exact backend model ID is not exposed
in-session. Tool-assisted workflow with shell execution, file editing,
git history inspection, 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
- [ ] 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
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The plugin system is the extension path for optional capabilities
that should not require core product changes for every integration.
> - Plugins need scoped host APIs for issue orchestration, documents,
wakeups, summaries, activity attribution, and isolated database state.
> - Without those host APIs, richer plugins either cannot coordinate
Paperclip work safely or need privileged core-side special cases.
> - This pull request adds the plugin orchestration host surface, scoped
route dispatch, a database namespace layer, and a smoke plugin that
exercises the contract.
> - The benefit is a broader plugin API that remains company-scoped,
auditable, and covered by tests.
## What Changed
- Added plugin orchestration host APIs for issue creation, document
access, wakeups, summaries, plugin-origin activity, and scoped API route
dispatch.
- Added plugin database namespace tables, schema exports, migration
checks, and idempotent replay coverage under migration
`0059_plugin_database_namespaces`.
- Added shared plugin route/API types and validators used by server and
SDK boundaries.
- Expanded plugin SDK types, protocol helpers, worker RPC host behavior,
and testing utilities for orchestration flows.
- Added the `plugin-orchestration-smoke-example` package to exercise
scoped routes, restricted database namespaces, issue orchestration,
documents, wakeups, summaries, and UI status surfaces.
- Kept the new orchestration smoke fixture out of the root pnpm
workspace importer so this PR preserves the repository policy of not
committing `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
- Updated plugin docs and database docs for the new orchestration and
database namespace surfaces.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master`, resolved conflicts, and
removed `pnpm-lock.yaml` from the final PR diff.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/client.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-scoped-api-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-sdk-orchestration-contract.test.ts`
- From `packages/plugins/examples/plugin-orchestration-smoke-example`:
`pnpm exec vitest run --config ./vitest.config.ts`
- `pnpm --dir
packages/plugins/examples/plugin-orchestration-smoke-example run
typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- PR CI on latest head `293fc67c`: `policy`, `verify`, `e2e`, and
`security/snyk` all passed.
## Risks
- Medium risk: this expands plugin host authority, so route auth,
company scoping, and plugin-origin activity attribution need careful
review.
- Medium risk: database namespace migration behavior must remain
idempotent for environments that may have seen earlier branch versions.
- Medium risk: the orchestration smoke fixture is intentionally excluded
from the root workspace importer to avoid a `pnpm-lock.yaml` PR diff;
direct fixture verification remains listed above.
- Low operational risk from the PR setup itself: the branch is rebased
onto current `master`, the migration is ordered after upstream
`0057`/`0058`, and `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not in the final diff.
> 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 work aligns with the completed Plugin system
milestone and extends the plugin surface rather than duplicating an
unrelated planned core feature.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in a tool-enabled CLI
environment. Exact hosted model build and context-window size are not
exposed by the runtime; reasoning/tool use were enabled for repository
inspection, editing, testing, git operations, and PR creation.
## 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 core UI screen change; example plugin UI contract
is covered by tests)
- [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>
Expose telemetry.track through the plugin SDK and server host bridge, forward plugin-prefixed events into the shared telemetry client, and demonstrate the capability in the kitchen sink example.\n\nCo-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Devin Foley