fix(RBR-943/RBR-1029): AGENT_HOME must be the run's own agent home, never a foreign agent's - #27
Closed
PraeSynBH wants to merge 585 commits into
Closed
fix(RBR-943/RBR-1029): AGENT_HOME must be the run's own agent home, never a foreign agent's#27PraeSynBH wants to merge 585 commits into
PraeSynBH wants to merge 585 commits into
Conversation
…paperclipai#10124) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and needs auditable control over secret resolution > - The skip-user-secret skills routes still have to attribute access to the real actor > - These routes were calling the adapter config resolver without an access context > - That dropped actor attribution from the company `secret_ref` audit trail > - This pull request threads the existing actor-secret context helper into both skills routes > - The benefit is that audit fidelity is restored without changing `skipUserSecrets` behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs paperclipai#10115. This PR fixes a gap in the skills read/sync routes where `resolveAdapterConfigForRuntime` was being called without an audit access context, so company secret resolution could not reliably attribute the request to the acting user or agent. The change keeps `skipUserSecrets: true` intact and only restores audit fidelity. ## What Changed - Threaded `buildActorSecretContext(req, { consumerType: "agent", consumerId })` into `GET /agents/:id/skills` - Threaded the same actor context into `POST /agents/:id/skills/sync` - Updated the route tests to assert a non-`undefined` actor context reaches the resolver while `skipUserSecrets: true` stays unchanged ## Verification - `tsc --noEmit` - `agents` and `secrets` Vitest suites: 33 files / 448 tests green - Route spy assertions confirm both skills routes now pass an actor-derived context to the resolver ## Risks - Low risk: the change is limited to audit context propagation on two skills routes - If a downstream resolver assumes the third argument can be `undefined`, this makes the context explicit on these routes - The user-secret authorization behavior does not change because `skipUserSecrets` remains true ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex, tool-using coding agent, 256k context window ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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: Harold Kim <harold@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Auto-generated lockfile refresh after dependencies changed on master. This PR only updates pnpm-lock.yaml. Co-authored-by: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent execution through heartbeat runs and adapter-specific sessions > - Plugins can open an agent session and send a conversational message through the host service > - The host previously stored that message only in opaque wake payload metadata, so local adapters never saw it in their CLI prompt > - The host also forwarded run log chunks but did not expose the persisted final assistant text as the session reply > - This pull request defines both sides of the session contract in the shared wake renderer and terminal run event > - The benefit is that local adapters receive the actual conversational turn and plugins receive one canonical final reply ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related context: Refs paperclipai#629 and Refs paperclipai#2880 describe adjacent `claude_local` final-text visibility failures. They concern issue comments rather than plugin agent sessions, but exercise the same need for a canonical persisted run summary. Companion consumer change: paperclipai/paperclip-gateway#3. Bug description: - **Observed:** calling the plugin host's `agents.sessions.sendMessage()` with `prompt: "hello"` woke a `claude_local` agent, but the generated CLI prompt omitted `hello`. On completion, the session emitted log chunks and a generic `Run completed` done event, so callers could not reliably recover the assistant reply. - **Expected:** the prompt becomes the user-supplied conversational turn for that agent session, and the successful terminal event carries the run's canonical final user-facing assistant text. - **Reproduction:** create a plugin agent session for a local adapter, call `sendMessage()` with a non-empty prompt, inspect the adapter prompt and terminal session event. - **Affected baseline:** `b517b887a` on `master`, local trusted deployment with plugin host services and `claude_local`; `codex_local` shared the wake-rendering gap because both use the common Paperclip wake prompt renderer. ## What Changed - Added a typed `agentMessage` wake payload rendered by the shared adapter prompt path used by `claude_local`, `codex_local`, and other local adapters. - Labeled session content as user-supplied and explicitly non-authoritative: it cannot expand authorization, permissions, task scope, or company boundaries. - Preserved ordinary heartbeat behavior by omitting the section when no agent-session message exists. - Added canonical `finalText` to terminal heartbeat status events from the already-persisted run summary/result/message. - Defined successful `AgentSessionEvent.message` as the canonical final user-facing reply (or `null`) and forwarded it on the terminal `done` event. - Added host, wake-renderer, normal-heartbeat, and terminal-reply regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-agent-session-message.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-status-payload.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-agent-sessions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-summary.test.ts` — 87 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed across all 31 workspaces. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — 2,860 passed, 1 skipped, 3 unrelated failures: two existing macOS temp-path alias assertions (`/tmp` vs `/private/tmp`) in workspace branch-containment tests and one reproducible auto-port runtime-service adoption failure. The same three failures reproduce when the two files run alone; none touch this change. - Live Slack verification intentionally remains operator-gated because it requires rebuilding/restarting the host. ## Risks - User-controlled chat text now reaches the model prompt, which is an intentional prompt-injection surface. The renderer labels it as untrusted conversational content, while the existing plugin/session company checks and caller authorization remain unchanged. - `finalText` is added to company-scoped heartbeat status events. It is derived from the same persisted summary/result/message already used for run comments; no raw stdout or secrets are added. - Consumers that ignore the new field remain compatible, and successful runs without usable final text still emit `message: null`. > 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), agentic reasoning with repository/tool use and code execution; context-window size is not surfaced in this environment. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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>
…ner disk exhaustion (paperclipai#10142) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Docker image publish workflow (`.github/workflows/docker.yml`) builds and pushes the multi-arch `ghcr.io` image on every master push, so users pulling the container get the latest code > - The two newest master runs of that workflow failed, so no images have been published past a recent master commit > - The failures had two distinct causes: run [30054330748](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/30054330748) hit `ERR_PNPM_LOCKFILE_CONFIG_MISMATCH` (committed `pnpm-lock.yaml` drifted from `patchedDependencies` in package metadata), and run [30050197392](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/30050197392) hit `no space left on device` during the multi-arch buildx export > - This pull request hardens the publish job against both failure modes: it refreshes the lockfile (lockfile-only, guarded) before the build, and frees runner disk space before buildx setup > - The benefit is that image publishing keeps working through routine lockfile drift and the growing multi-arch build footprint, so `ghcr.io` images stay current with master ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs paperclipai#8286 — same class of Docker-build lockfile mismatch failure - Refs paperclipai#8827 — pnpm 9.15.x pin / lockfile regeneration discussion - Note: the immediate lockfile drift on master was fixed by paperclipai#10132; the refresh step here prevents the *next* drift from breaking image publishing again ## What Changed - Added a pnpm + Node setup and a **"Refresh lockfile for Docker build context"** step to the image job in `.github/workflows/docker.yml`: runs `pnpm install --lockfile-only --ignore-scripts --no-frozen-lockfile`, exits cleanly if nothing changed, and **fails the job if anything other than `pnpm-lock.yaml` was modified** by the refresh - Added a **"Free runner disk"** step (before buildx setup) that prunes the pnpm store, apt caches, preinstalled toolchains (`/usr/share/dotnet`, Android SDK, Swift, Boost, PowerShell, GHC, CodeQL/PyPy/Ruby toolcache), and dangling Docker state, logging `df -h` before/after - No changes outside the workflow file (54 added lines, nothing removed) ## Verification - Pulled the logs of both failed master runs and matched each failure to the step that addresses it: [30054330748](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/30054330748) failed with `ERR_PNPM_LOCKFILE_CONFIG_MISMATCH`, [30050197392](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/30050197392) failed with `no space left on device` during the buildx export - Confirmed pnpm `9.15.4` in the new setup step matches the repo `packageManager` field and the version used in the Dockerfile, so the refreshed lockfile is generated by the same pnpm the image build consumes - Validated the workflow YAML parses cleanly - The workflow triggers on master pushes / manual dispatch; the definitive check is the first master run after merge — reviewers can also `workflow_dispatch` it from this branch if desired ## Risks - The lockfile refresh runs with `--ignore-scripts` and a guard that aborts on any non-lockfile change, so it cannot silently pull unexpected code into the image; worst case it fails the job with a clear diff - The published image could be built from a refreshed lockfile that differs from the committed one when drift exists — that keeps publishing alive but can mask drift on master, which still needs the committed lockfile fixed (as paperclipai#10132 did) - Disk cleanup removes preinstalled toolchains only on the ephemeral runner for this job; other jobs/workflows are unaffected - Low risk overall: additive steps in a single workflow file ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic) — `claude-fable-5` (Claude Code agent harness, extended thinking, tool use). Used to diagnose the failing CI runs from logs, author the workflow changes, and prepare this PR. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (no runtime code touched; workflow YAML validated — see Verification) - [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable (n/a — CI workflow change) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (none needed) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending — will confirm once checks run) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending review pass) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Confinement providers protect agent runs with default-deny network policies > - Kubernetes environments currently apply only provider-level, namespace-wide egress allowances > - Tasks that legitimately need GitHub or package registries therefore cannot request narrow access, while network failures do not explain the governing policy or how to request a grant > - This pull request adds issue-scoped egress grants that become workload-owned, run-label-selected policies and carries the effective grant through lease audit metadata > - The benefit is that internet-dependent work can run without enabling broad egress for every concurrent task, and denied requests point operators to the exact grant path ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. Related but distinct: Refs paperclipai#9944, which adds a provider-wide open-internet posture; this PR keeps provider defaults narrow and adds per-task grants. **Problem / motivation** Kubernetes sandbox egress is configured at the provider/tenant level. A task that needs to clone from GitHub or install from PyPI cannot request those destinations without changing the policy for every run in the tenant namespace. DNS/connectivity failures also surface as generic tool errors with no policy name or remediation path. **Proposed solution** Accept `executionWorkspaceSettings.networkEgress.allowFqdns` and `allowCidrs`, forward the setting through heartbeat environment acquisition, and create a workload-owned NetworkPolicy or CiliumNetworkPolicy selected by `paperclip.io/run-id`. Record the effective grant in lease activity/metadata, expose policy context through `PAPERCLIP_NETWORK_EGRESS_*`, and append the grant path to likely policy-related stderr failures. **Alternatives considered** A provider-wide open-internet switch is broader than required and is already covered by paperclipai#9944. Mutating the existing namespace policy would leak each task's destinations to other concurrent runs. Standard Kubernetes NetworkPolicy cannot enforce FQDNs exactly, so standard mode uses the existing hardened public-IPv4 TCP 80/443 fallback only for the selected run; Cilium mode remains exact. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing cloud/sandbox agent roadmap capability with task-level control-plane policy and does not duplicate a planned roadmap item. ## What Changed - Added validated `networkEgress` grants to issue execution workspace settings and forwarded them through environment lease acquisition. - Added workload-owned, run-label-scoped NetworkPolicy/CiliumNetworkPolicy resources for task FQDN/CIDR grants. - Added lease audit metadata, sandbox policy environment variables, and actionable network-denial stderr guidance. - Added focused parser, manifest, policy creation, and denial-message tests plus Kubernetes provider documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm -C packages/shared exec vitest run src/validators/issue.test.ts` — 27 passed. - `pnpm -C packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/kubernetes test -- --run test/unit/network-policy.test.ts test/unit/cilium-network-policy.test.ts test/unit/scoped-network-egress.test.ts` — 21 passed. - `pnpm -C server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts` — 15 passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts` — 26 passed. - `pnpm --dir packages/db build && pnpm --dir packages/shared build && pnpm --dir packages/plugins/sdk build` — passed, including migration safety checks. - `pnpm --dir packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/kubernetes typecheck && pnpm --dir server typecheck` — passed after refreshing the worktree's frozen offline dependencies. - End-to-end cluster validation of the `build-cython-ext` benchmark remains for CI/maintainer Kubernetes infrastructure; the focused tests assert `github.com` and `pypi.org` produce a policy selected only by the granted run. ## Risks - Standard NetworkPolicy cannot express FQDNs, so an FQDN grant allows hardened public IPv4 TCP 80/443 for that run; use Cilium mode for exact hostname enforcement. - The new field is additive and absent by default, so existing runs keep the current provider-level policy. - Workload owner references garbage-collect scoped policies with the Job/Sandbox; a cluster/controller that ignores owner references could temporarily strand a policy that still selects no future run ID. > 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning mode, tool use and code execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
…ai#10178) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent runs depend on adapters translating Paperclip configuration into each agent runtime's native configuration > - The OpenCode local adapter passes configured models through the `--model provider/model` argument > - OpenCode only resolves that argument when the model id exists in the provider's runtime `models` map > - Valid provider-served model ids missing from OpenCode's bundled catalog therefore fail locally with `Model not found` > - This pull request registers the configured model in the injected runtime configuration without overwriting explicit provider definitions > - The benefit is that uncataloged routing variants and newly released models resolve while cataloged models retain their metadata ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I can reproduce this on current `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip's OpenCode adapter rather than the provider or local configuration. ### What happened? OpenCode local runs failed with `Model not found` when a configured `provider/model` id was valid at the provider but absent from OpenCode's bundled model catalog. OpenRouter routing variants such as model ids ending in `:nitro` are one example. ### Expected behavior Any configured provider-served model id should resolve when Paperclip starts OpenCode, including ids not yet present in the bundled catalog. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Configure the OpenCode local adapter with a valid provider/model id that is absent from OpenCode's bundled catalog. 2. Start an agent run. 3. Observe that OpenCode rejects the `--model` value with `Model not found` before the session starts. ### Paperclip version or commit Current `master` before this change. ### Deployment mode Local dev using the OpenCode local adapter and an existing provider API key. ### Installation method Built from source. ### Agent adapter(s) involved OpenCode local. ### Database mode Not database-related. ### Relevant logs or output `Model not found` ### Additional context Reproduced with OpenCode 1.15.5. No duplicate or related public GitHub issues or pull requests were found. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for sensitive information and no secrets or PII are included. ## What Changed - Register the configured `provider/model` id as an empty custom model entry in the injected `opencode.json` provider configuration. - Preserve explicit model definitions from user configuration and `PAPERCLIP_OPENCODE_PROVIDERS`. - Skip registration for model strings that do not use the `provider/model` form. - Add focused coverage for uncataloged models, explicit definitions, and invalid model strings. ## Verification - `cd packages/adapters/opencode-local && pnpm exec vitest run src/server/runtime-config.test.ts` — 14 tests passed. - `cd packages/adapters/opencode-local && pnpm exec tsc --noEmit` — passed. - Manual reproduction with OpenCode 1.15.5: the uncataloged OpenRouter routing variant fails without the injected model entry and resolves with it. ## Risks - Low risk: the empty entry deep-merges with catalog metadata for known models, and existing explicit model definitions take precedence. - The behavior is limited to syntactically valid `provider/model` configuration values in the OpenCode local adapter. > 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, exact runtime model `gpt-5.6-sol` (context-window size not exposed by the runtime), with reasoning, tool use, terminal execution, and code-editing capabilities. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
paperclipai#10157) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Managed (cloud-hosted) deployments configure instances through `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG`, including a `plugins.autoInstall` key list that the boot-time installer resolves against the bundled plugin catalog > - The installer requires each bundled plugin's `dist/manifest.js` (`server/src/services/bundled-plugins.ts`), but the published image only ships the sandbox providers' *source* — they are intentionally excluded from the pnpm workspace, and the Dockerfile never builds them > - Every managed auto-install therefore logs `bundled plugin bundle not present; skipping auto-install` and no sandbox provider can be provisioned through managed config > - Baking built plugins into the single published image would fix it but makes every self-hosted pull carry the providers' `node_modules` for a managed-only mechanism > - This pull request adds a `cloud` Dockerfile target extending `production` with built bundled plugins — parameterized by build arg and currently just `daytona` — published alongside the default image with a `-cloud` tag suffix > - The benefit is working plugin auto-provisioning for managed deployments while the self-hosted image stays byte-identical and the cloud variant only carries what is actually deployed ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes paperclipai#10158 (filed for this problem; no prior issue existed — searched for duplicate/related PRs and issues around bundled plugins, docker image variants, and auto-install). Summary: **What happened:** on a managed instance with `plugins.autoInstall: ["daytona"]` delivered via `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG`, boot logs `bundled plugin bundle not present; skipping auto-install` with `pluginPath: /app/packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona`, and the plugin is never installed. **Expected:** the advertised bundled-catalog keys are installable from the published image. **Why:** the image ships plugin source without `dist/` — nothing in the Dockerfile builds the workspace-excluded sandbox providers. ## What Changed - `Dockerfile`: new `cloud-plugins` stage (based on `build`, so devDependencies are available for `tsc`) that installs and builds each provider named in the `CLOUD_BUNDLED_PLUGINS` build arg standalone (`pnpm install --ignore-workspace --no-lockfile && pnpm build`, exactly as the providers' READMEs prescribe), asserting `dist/manifest.js` exists per plugin and failing loudly on unknown names; new `cloud` stage = `production` + the built plugin tree. The arg defaults to `daytona` — the only provider managed deployments auto-install today; every entry adds its `node_modules` to the image, so the list grows only with actual need (a one-line workflow change). - `.github/workflows/docker.yml`: the existing build step is pinned to `target: production` (without this, the new trailing stage would silently become the default build target — this pin is what keeps the self-hosted image identical); new metadata + build-push steps publish the `cloud` target (with `CLOUD_BUNDLED_PLUGINS=daytona`) under the same tag set with a `-cloud` suffix (`sha-<short>-cloud`, `latest-cloud`, `<version>-cloud`), same schema labels, reusing the GHA layer cache ## Verification - All seven sandbox providers build standalone from a clean checkout with the exact commands the new stage runs, each producing `dist/manifest.js` — so the current `daytona` default works and future list additions are known-good - The stage's shell loop was dry-run against the checkout (directory existence + per-plugin assertion logic) - Workflow YAML lints clean - **Not run:** a full multi-arch `docker build` (no local docker daemon). The `cloud` stage is additive and the default target is pinned, so the risk is contained to the new build step; the first master build after merge proves it end-to-end ## Risks - Self-hosted behavior: unchanged. The default image build is pinned to the `production` target, which produces the same layers as before this change; the `cloud` stages run only for the new build step. - The plugin installs in the `cloud-plugins` stage use `--no-lockfile` (the providers are workspace-excluded and lockfile-less by design), so plugin dependency resolution is not pinned at image-build time. This mirrors the existing Plugins-page install path, which resolves from npm at install time. - CI cost: one additional build-push per master push. It reuses the layer cache from the production build, so the marginal work is the single plugin's build layers. - An unknown name in `CLOUD_BUNDLED_PLUGINS`, or a provider that stops producing `dist/manifest.js`, fails the cloud build loudly rather than publishing a broken variant. ## Model Used Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5[1m]` via Claude Code CLI — extended thinking and tool use (code edits, standalone plugin build verification, workflow lint). ## Checklist - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] Self-hosted behavior unchanged (default build target pinned to `production`) - [x] One clear change: publish a cloud image variant with built bundled plugins
…ipai#10101) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Operators need a board-level way to monitor a changing slice of company work without repeatedly rebuilding filters or reading raw task threads. > - Existing summaries are useful snapshots, but they do not provide a dedicated query-backed card with refresh policy, change tracking, update history, and per-update cost visibility. > - The capability needs to be safe to evaluate before it becomes part of the default product surface. > - This pull request adds end-to-end experimental Status Cards, from schema and query compilation through update orchestration and operator UI. > - The entire feature is gated behind the `enableStatusCards` experimental toggle, including its route and sidebar entry. > - The benefit is a governed, inspectable way to keep focused operational rollups current while preserving explicit controls over refresh frequency and spend. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `server/`, `ui/`, and bundled skills/docs). ### Problem or motivation Operators cannot currently define a reusable natural-language view of company work, compile it into an inspectable query, and keep its summary current as matching issues change. Rebuilding filters and rereading task threads makes board-level monitoring repetitive and hides the relationship between source changes, refresh cost, and the resulting summary. ### Proposed solution Add experimental Status Cards that compile operator intent into a query, summarize matched work, record each update, expose manual/interval/reactive refresh policies and costs, and preserve the last good result across stale, updating, paused, and error states. The capability is off by default and fully gated behind `enableStatusCards`, including its route and navigation entry. ### Alternatives considered - Extend existing one-off summaries: rejected because status cards require persistent query provenance, refresh policy, update history, and card-specific cost controls. - Add a dashboard-only filter widget: rejected because it would not provide governed background refresh, an update ledger, or an inspectable compile pipeline. - Ship the surface by default: rejected in favor of an experimental toggle while behavior and operator value are evaluated. ### Roadmap alignment This advances Paperclip’s board-level execution visibility and output-first product goals. `ROADMAP.md` was checked and no duplicate status-card initiative was found. ### Additional context No related open PR was found in the public GitHub search for status cards. The PR-only design wireframes were removed from the repository after review; the published prototype remains external to the production source tree. ## What Changed - Added company-scoped status-card schema, CRUD APIs, compile provenance, update ledger, shared contracts, validators, and OpenAPI coverage. - Added the text-to-query compile pipeline, bundled `status-card-query` agent skill, query versioning, and authorized write-back flow. - Added the experimental board, create flow, lifecycle tiles, detail/settings/debug drawers, archived view, routing, navigation, and instance setting. - Added a change-gated update engine with manual, interval, and reactive refresh policies, trigger selection, active hours, and daily token caps. - Added per-update token/cost recording, today and lifetime rollups, and policy-derived cost previews. - Added operator documentation and agent-authoring hardening for compile and update behavior. - Added PR-prep integration coverage for settings/startup wiring and replaced raw UI values with design-system tokens. - Removed the PR-only `design/pap-15023-status-cards` wireframe artifacts so the repository contains only production feature assets. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passes on the PR head; includes `ui` `tsc -b` passing. The UI compile gate was also independently recorded as passing at `6d7f3cf96b` on July 23, 2026. - `pnpm build` — passes. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passes with all three gates clean. - `pnpm test:run` — 2,880 tests passed and 1 skipped; the sole failure was an unrelated 10-second `afterAll` database-cleanup timeout in `execution-workspaces-service.test.ts`. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` — passes on immediate focused rerun (25/25). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` — passes (31/31). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/StatusCards/StatusCardSettingsForm.test.tsx src/pages/StatusCards/StatusCardTile.test.tsx src/pages/StatusCards/format.test.ts src/lib/status-card-state.test.ts` — passes (26/26). - Recorded pre-PR QA: compile-pipeline e2e PASS; full lifecycle and cost QA PASS; security re-review PASS after write-back hardening; UX approved. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/status-card-migrations.test.ts` — passes; reapplies migrations `0185`–`0189` against an already-migrated embedded Postgres database. - `pnpm --filter /db check:migrations` — passes migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter /db typecheck` — passes. - Merged current `origin/master` on July 24, 2026 with no conflicts; migrations `0185`–`0189` remain unclaimed on master. ## Risks - The feature introduces five database migrations and a new background update path; all new DDL is repeat-safe after partial application, migration numbering/safety checks pass, and update execution is company-scoped and change-gated. - Natural-language compilation can produce invalid or overly broad queries; compile provenance, query validation, debug visibility, and version history make failures inspectable and recoverable. - Reactive or interval refresh could increase spend; active hours, max refresh frequency, daily token caps, per-update cost records, and budget-paused states bound and expose that risk. - The branch name contains an internal execution identifier because it is a fixed handoff branch; it was intentionally not renamed or rebased per the release handoff instructions. - Overall rollout risk is limited because the route, navigation, services, and UI are disabled by default behind `enableStatusCards`. > 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 using GPT-5.5 with reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, GitHub CLI, and test/build execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change; the fixed execution-workspace identifier is documented as an authorized handoff exception - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass, with the one cleanup timeout passing on focused rerun - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip includes built-in database backup and retention behavior as part of its operational reliability surface. > - The retention implementation lives in `packages/db/src/backup-lib.ts`. > - Monthly pruning is intended to keep the newest backup per retained calendar month. > - The current cutoff uses a fixed 30-day approximation, which deletes January backups too early when the current month has 31 days. > - This pull request switches the monthly cutoff to calendar-month boundaries instead of a fixed day multiplier. > - The benefit is that monthly retention now matches the documented calendar-month behavior and does not prune valid backups prematurely. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes paperclipai#3713 Two other pull requests implemented the same fix and have already been closed as duplicates of this one: - paperclipai#3798 — same author's later take. Anchors the cutoff to the 1st correctly, but mutates the date in local time and leaves `monthKey` on local time, and unit-tests the helper in isolation rather than end to end. - paperclipai#4031 — decrements the month without anchoring to the 1st, so partial-month drift and a `setMonth` day-overflow edge case remain. No tests. ## What Changed - Replaced the fixed `30 * 24h` monthly retention cutoff with a calendar-month cutoff anchored to the first day of the earliest retained month. - Added a regression test that freezes `Date.now()` at March 31 and proves the newest January backup is retained when `monthlyMonths=2`. - Kept the rest of the pruning behavior unchanged: daily and weekly tiers still use their existing windows and bucket selection rules. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/backup-lib.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec tsc --noEmit` - Note: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` hits an environment-specific `check:migrations` runtime failure on this host (`Cannot find module ./cjs/index.cjs from ` via Bun), so I used plain `tsc --noEmit` to validate the code changes themselves. ## Risks - Low risk. This only changes the monthly retention cutoff calculation. - The pruning buckets are still selected the same way; the fix only widens the retained month window to align with calendar-month semantics. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex GPT-5 coding agent with terminal tool use and code 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 searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [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 - [ ] 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 --- <sub>Edited by commitperclip during triage: added the **Linked Issues** section (`Fixes paperclipai#3713`) and the duplicate-PR search line the PR template requires. The duplicate search was performed by the triage pipeline, which grouped this PR with paperclipai#3798 and paperclipai#4031 and selected this one as the canonical fix. Everything else is the author's original description.</sub> --------- Co-authored-by: Andrew Aymeloglu <aaymeloglu@gmail.com>
…pt (paperclipai#10202) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their ongoing work. > - Status cards turn a standing question into recurring, agent-generated summaries on the board. > - The existing setup split intent across a watch prompt and separate update instructions, which made creation and later behavior harder to understand. > - A status card should have one durable source of truth for both deciding what to watch and telling the summarizer what each update must contain. > - This pull request makes the card prompt that source of truth, simplifies creation to one step, and lets operators choose the running agent immediately. > - The benefit is a smaller mental model, fewer configuration modes, and consistent update instructions throughout the card lifecycle. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Status cards currently require operators to express the same intent in two places: the watch prompt and optional update instructions with append/replace/none modes. This feature simplifies the experimental status-card workflow so a single prompt defines both the watch query and every generated update. The create flow must also support selecting the responsible agent without a second setup step. Related prior status-card work: paperclipai#10101. ## What Changed - Use the status card's single prompt to compile the watch query and directly instruct every summary update. - Add migration `0190_status_card_single_prompt` to remove `status_cards.instructions_mode` and `status_cards.instructions`. - Add `agentId` to `createStatusCardSchema`, validate company membership, and default new cards to the built-in Summarizer. - Replace the two-step create flow with one prompt-and-agent dialog and extract a shared `SummarizerAgentSelect` for create/settings surfaces. - Remove the extra-instructions settings section, reset incremental history when the prompt changes, and rename the board page to "Status". - Update the bundled `status-card-query` skill and board-operator documentation, then regenerate the skills catalog manifest. ## Verification - Server status-card suites: 29/29 passing. - UI `StatusCards` suites: 22/22 passing. - Skills catalog suite: 20/20 passing. - `tsc -b` passes for server, UI, shared, and database packages. - `pnpm check:migrations` passes. - Light and dark mode screenshots cover the new create dialog and settings tab. ## Risks - Migration `0190` intentionally drops existing separate instruction text. Existing card prompts remain and become the update instructions under the new model; status cards are experimental and feature-flagged. - Prompt edits now reset the incremental summary chain and trigger a full rebuild, which is intentional because the prompt is also the update contract. - Agent selection is company-scoped; invalid agent ids return a validation error rather than creating a misrouted card. > 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 - Implementation: Anthropic Claude via the `claude_local` adapter, agent label "Claude Fable 5"; extended reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact provider model id and context-window value were not retained in the task metadata. - PR preparation: OpenAI GPT-5.4 through Codex CLI, with reasoning, repository inspection, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Routines page is part of the operator UI for scheduled routine management > - The grouped-by-folder view was not presenting folder sections inline in the main pane > - That made the folder grouping mode harder to scan and hid the separation between custom folders, Unfiled routines, and built-in routines > - This pull request updates the Routines page rendering so folder groups appear as inline sections and built-in routines still split into their own section afterward > - The benefit is that grouped routines stay readable and the page matches the intended folder organization ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No corresponding public GitHub issue exists, so the problem is described directly below following the bug template. ### What happened On the Routines page, selecting Group → Folder flattened the grouped list into a single "All routines" section with only the separate built-in routines section below it. ### Expected behavior Group → Folder should render one inline section per folder, keep routines with no folder in an Unfiled section, and preserve the separate built-in routines section after the custom folder groups. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Open the Routines page. 2. Change grouping to Folder. 3. Observe the main pane. 4. The routine list is flattened instead of grouped into folder-labeled inline sections. ### Paperclip version / commit Current PR head: `a8e384c838e362de3437c7a88bc7aa38b10fd9c0` on `fix/routine-folder-grouping`. ### Deployment mode Local development workspace for the Paperclip app UI. ## What Changed - Updated the Routines page rendering so grouped folders render as inline sections instead of flattening into a single list. - Kept routines without a folder grouped under Unfiled. - Preserved the built-in routines section after custom folder groups. - Added and updated tests for the folder-grouped rendering behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` ## Risks - Low risk: the change is localized to the Routines page rendering and its test coverage. - The main behavioral risk is accidental grouping regressions if future routine-grouping logic changes without updating the tests. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool-use enabled, 256k-context class model. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Harold Kim <harold@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
…lipai#10184) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI agents and their work. > - The heartbeat recovery subsystem detects successful runs that leave assigned issues `in_progress` without a durable disposition or continuation path. > - The existing corrective wake used a cheap, status-only model profile, so the assignee could not perform missing verification or deliverable work before choosing the issue disposition. > - The existing wake prompt also omitted the original issue context and the agent's own final report, making an honest finish/blocked/continue decision harder. > - This pull request keeps the structural handoff guards and one-attempt loop bound, but wakes the assignee on its normal model lane with context-rich instructions. > - The benefit is that Paperclip asks the responsible agent to inspect its own evidence, perform the smallest missing verification when needed, and then record a real disposition without server-side prose classification. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related prior approach: paperclipai#10154 (closed; this PR intentionally does not reuse its regex classifier or route-level gate). **Problem** A succeeded agent run can leave its issue `in_progress` with no valid disposition. Paperclip already detects this structurally and queues a corrective handoff, but that wake currently runs as cheap/status-only recovery and receives little context. The assignee may be unable to create deliverables or verify the work, and the prompt does not quote the report that caused the ambiguity. **Expected behavior** The corrective wake should use the assignee's normal model and adapter settings, include the issue identifier/title/description, quote the agent's own final report, include any recorded next action, preserve the four disposition options, and explicitly require concrete verification before marking the issue done. **Scope** This change does not classify run prose, add a route-level disposition gate, alter run-liveness classification, or change the one-attempt handoff loop bound. ## What Changed - Switched successful-run corrective handoff payloads and context snapshots from `status_only` to `normal_model`, removing cheap-model and status-only guard hints. - Added issue description, final-report, next-action, and detected-progress fallback context to the handoff decision and instruction builder. - Reworked the instruction into clear "supposed to do / what happened / options / what to do" sections with bounded description/report excerpts and verbatim blockquotes. - Added unit and heartbeat integration coverage for normal-lane payloads, context plumbing, evidence quoting, fallback behavior, and truncation while preserving structural skip tests. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts` — 24 tests passed. - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "queues one finish-handoff wake when a successful run leaves in-progress work without a next action"` — 1 passed, 90 skipped. - `pnpm --dir server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check` — passed. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate behavioral risk: an ambiguous successful run now consumes the assignee's normal model rather than a cheap profile and may perform verification or finish work before disposition. - Prompt excerpts are bounded to approximately 1,200 description characters and 2,000 report characters; very long context is intentionally ellipsized. - The existing structural skip guards, idempotency key, and single corrective attempt remain unchanged to prevent loops. > 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 using `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning effort, with repository/tool execution. Context-window size was not exposed by the runtime configuration. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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 Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…perclipai#10204) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Sandbox-backed runs need observable startup behavior so operators can see where time is spent before an adapter is invoked > - The current startup path only surfaced aggregate timing, which makes it hard to identify the slow boundary in the bring-up sequence > - That gap matters because sandbox startup latency is often dominated by one specific step, and aggregate timing hides the bottleneck > - This pull request adds per-step startup timing events for the named sandbox bring-up boundaries > - The benefit is more precise observability with no control-flow change and no schema migration ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) ### Problem or motivation Sandbox run startup only exposed aggregate timing. That makes it hard to identify which bring-up boundary is responsible for slow starts, especially in remote or sandboxed execution where the bottleneck can move between workspace setup, skill reconciliation, bridge setup, and adapter handshake. ### Proposed solution Emit a structured timing event for each named startup boundary before the adapter is invoked, so the existing run-event stream carries per-step duration data. This keeps the event path additive and lets operators see which step dominates startup latency without changing control flow or introducing a schema migration. ### Alternatives considered - Keep only the aggregate startup duration: simpler, but it hides the bottleneck and makes regression analysis much harder. - Add a new telemetry sink or schema field: rejected because the existing run-event payload already carries structured event data and does not need a new storage path. - Log unstructured text for each step: rejected because it is harder to query and aggregate than a structured `step` + `durationMs` event. ### Roadmap alignment This fits the roadmap direction around cloud / sandbox agents and enforced outcomes by improving observability for sandboxed execution without changing the control plane model. The roadmap section is broad, but it does not call out this specific startup-timing work as a planned duplicate. ### Additional context This PR is intentionally additive. It records timing for the named startup boundaries in the existing event stream and leaves the bridge, database shape, and adapter invocation order unchanged. ## What Changed - Added a `measureStartupStep` helper that times a startup step, emits one structured `run.startup.step` event, and rethrows failures after recording duration - Wrapped the seven sandbox bring-up boundaries in `execute.ts` so the structured timing covers each named step before adapter invocation - Added unit coverage for the helper and integration coverage for the startup-step events in the adapter-utils execute path - Kept the event path additive, with no bridge change and no database migration ## Verification - `tsc --noEmit` for `@paperclip/adapter-utils` - `pnpm test` in `packages/adapter-utils` equivalent suite coverage: 292 passed, 4 skipped - Adjacent server event/log-store suites: `run-log-store.test.ts` and `heartbeat-run-log.test.ts` passed (11 total) - Git validation: fetched `origin/feat/sandbox-startup-step-timing`, confirmed it matches the authorized submit SHA, and confirmed `origin/master..origin/feat/sandbox-startup-step-timing` contains the expected single commit - Searched GitHub for duplicate or related open PRs/issues and found no overlapping open items - Checked `ROADMAP.md`; the roadmap covers sandboxed environments generally, but does not call out this specific startup-timing observability work as a planned duplicate ## Risks - Low risk: the change is additive and only emits additional structured events - If downstream consumers assume startup events are aggregate-only, they may need to ignore or account for the new `run.startup.step` entries - Timing is measured via the injected clock and event emission happens in a `finally`, so failures still report duration before rethrowing ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5, tool-using coding agent ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Harold Kim <harold@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI agents for work > - Local coding adapters can be confined with filesystem and network sandbox policies > - Codex confinement proxied only user-allowlisted hosts, so it denied Paperclip's own run API and managed MCP endpoints > - The same proxy returned untyped plaintext denials, which MCP clients could treat as a fatal unexpected content type > - Host-only `PAPERCLIPAI_CMD` values could also leak into agents even when the referenced checkout module did not exist > - This pull request gives the sandbox an explicit trusted-URL channel for Paperclip endpoints, returns structured JSON errors, and removes the inherited host CLI pointer > - The benefit is confined Codex agents retain control-plane access without broadening the operator's external network allowlist or crashing on policy denials ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs paperclipai#3802 Related foundation: paperclipai#9504 ### What happened? A `codex_local` agent configured with `networkScope: "allowlist"` and an external-only allowlist could not reach its own Paperclip API or Paperclip-managed MCP endpoints. The sandbox proxy returned a `403` plaintext response without `Content-Type`, and an inherited `PAPERCLIPAI_CMD` could point at a missing checkout-local CLI module. ### Expected behavior Paperclip's run-scoped API and managed MCP endpoints remain reachable regardless of the user external allowlist. Policy denials are valid structured JSON responses with an explicit media type, and host-only CLI pointers are not inherited by agent processes. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Configure a `codex_local` agent with `networkScope: "allowlist"` and `networkAllowlist: ["api.openai.com"]`. 2. Run the agent and request its Paperclip issue API or a Paperclip-managed MCP endpoint. 3. Observe the sandbox proxy deny the request with an untyped plaintext `403` response. ### Environment - Paperclip commit: `f49a3f99` originally exhibited the defect; fix is based on current `master`. - Deployment: local source build on Linux. - Adapter: Codex. - Database: not database-related. - Access context: agent bearer/run-scoped credentials. ## What Changed - Added internal trusted URL rules to the local network allowlist proxy and supplied the Codex run API plus managed MCP endpoints. - Returned JSON error envelopes with `Content-Type` and `Content-Length` for HTTP and CONNECT policy denials. - Removed inherited `PAPERCLIPAI_CMD` from child process environments while preserving explicitly constructed runtime variables. - Added focused proxy and environment sanitizer regression tests. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/local-process-sandbox.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils-env.test.ts --reporter=verbose` - 2 test files passed; 8 tests passed; 4 platform-dependent tests skipped. - `git diff --check` - Package typecheck was attempted; it reaches unrelated current-`master` type drift in untouched files (`spawnCwd` in `adapter-utils`, and staged-runtime ACP types in `codex-local`). ## Risks - Low risk: trusted access is restricted to exact HTTP(S) hostname and port pairs derived from Paperclip-provided URLs. - Invalid or non-HTTP trusted URL values are ignored rather than broadening access. - Denial response bodies change from plaintext to structured JSON; status codes remain unchanged. > 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 (exact model ID and context window are not exposed to this runtime), reasoning and terminal/tool 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) - [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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI agents and their work. > - Local adapters are responsible for observing agent subprocesses and terminating runs that are genuinely stuck. > - The Codex local adapter currently treats output bytes as its only liveness signal for the 30-minute inactivity monitor. > - Healthy compile and test loops can consume CPU and perform disk I/O for longer than that without producing terminal output. > - Terminating those runs loses valid work, while removing the monitor entirely would allow truly wedged processes to run indefinitely. > - This pull request adds a Linux process-group activity probe that recognizes meaningful CPU, disk I/O, and child-process churn while retaining the existing timeout for idle processes. > - The benefit is that long silent builds can finish without weakening the adapter's hung-run safety net. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found in the duplicate/related search. **What happened** A healthy Codex local run executing a long compile/test loop could be terminated at the default 30-minute output-inactivity threshold when the child process emitted no stdout or stderr. **Expected behavior** The inactivity monitor should keep a silent run alive while its process group is doing meaningful work, but should still terminate a process group that is alive and idle. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run Codex local with the default `outputInactivityTimeoutMs`. 2. Have the agent start a compile or test command that consumes CPU or disk I/O without terminal output for longer than the threshold. 3. Observe the adapter terminate the otherwise healthy process group as output-inactive. **Affected version / deployment mode** Observed on a local-process Paperclip deployment using the Codex local adapter with the 30-minute default inactivity monitor. ## What Changed - Added a Linux `/proc` process-group sampler that tracks meaningful CPU tick growth, disk I/O growth, and child-process membership changes. - Reset the existing Codex inactivity timer when that sampler observes real process work, while leaving remote and non-Linux behavior unchanged. - Added diagnostics for the number of process-activity resets and documented the expanded liveness semantics. - Added unit coverage for process-activity timer resets and subprocess regressions for both a long silent CPU build and a genuinely wedged child. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/process-activity-monitor.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/output-inactivity-monitor.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/output-inactivity-monitor.integration.test.ts` - Focused result: 23 tests passed, including a silent CPU-bound subprocess that runs four times beyond the simulated inactivity window and an idle subprocess that is still terminated. ## Risks - Low risk and Linux-scoped: the new probe reads `/proc` every 15 seconds only while a monitored local Codex child is running. - The CPU threshold requires sustained work rather than any single scheduler tick, reducing the risk that a nearly idle event loop is treated as productive. - If `/proc` sampling is unavailable or fails, the adapter falls back to the existing output-only 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 with model `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning effort, terminal/tool execution, code editing, and test execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Heartbeat wake payloads provide the scoped task context an agent needs before it can act safely > - Assignment wakes already loaded the issue description for task markdown, but the structured wake-payload builder dropped it > - Agents reading `PAPERCLIP_WAKE_PAYLOAD_JSON` could therefore see a missing brief while also being told no fallback fetch was needed > - Long descriptions also need a bounded representation so wake environments and prompts remain safe > - This pull request carries the description through the server and adapter contract, and marks truncated descriptions as requiring fallback fetch > - The benefit is that agents receive the actual brief instead of inventing requirements from the title ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: paperclipai#5844 Fixes: paperclipai#2882 Related prior attempts: paperclipai#2883 and paperclipai#8402. This change adds focused regression coverage and enforces the missing long-description fallback invariant. **Bug:** Issue-assignment wake payloads omitted the issue description from the structured payload even when the issue had a populated description. **Expected behavior:** The structured wake payload includes the issue description. If the description must be truncated for payload size, `fallbackFetchNeeded` is `true`. **Reproduction:** Assign an issue with a description to an agent and inspect `PAPERCLIP_WAKE_PAYLOAD_JSON`; before this change, `issue.description` was absent while `fallbackFetchNeeded` could remain `false`. **Affected version:** Reproduced on current `master` before this patch. **Deployment mode:** Adapter-backed heartbeat execution, including local Codex agents. ## What Changed - Include `issues.description` in the server wake-payload query and supplied issue summaries. - Bound inline descriptions at 12,000 characters and force fallback fetch when truncation occurs. - Preserve and render description metadata through shared adapter normalization and prompt rendering. - Add focused tests for long-description fallback and exact brief-string rendering. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-agent-session-message.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` — 81 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check` — passed. ## Risks - Low risk: the payload shape is additive. - Very long descriptions are truncated at 12,000 characters; the payload explicitly requests a fallback fetch for the full brief. - Prompt size increases by the issue-description length for scoped wakes, bounded by the same limit. > This is a focused correctness fix and does not overlap with planned roadmap feature work. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.4 via Codex CLI, with reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, and test execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
…paperclipai#10216) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Heartbeat wake payloads and the task-context markdown are the two channels that deliver an issue's brief into an agent's prompt > - paperclipai#10151 fixed wake-prompt-only adapter lanes waking without the issue description by adding it to the structured wake payload > - That left the description delivered twice per prompt on lanes that also inject the task-context markdown, and re-delivered in full on every resume wake, permanently bloating persistent-session context > - This pull request makes the task markdown the single description carrier on lanes that use it, and omits the description from non-assignment resume deltas on all lanes while keeping it for assignment-shaped and recovery wakes > - The benefit is that every lane receives the brief exactly once when it needs it, and long-lived sessions stop re-paying the full brief in tokens on every wake ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs paperclipai#10151 Related prior work: paperclipai#2883, paperclipai#8402 (earlier description-delivery attempts referenced by paperclipai#10151). I searched the PR list for open work on wake-payload description handling and found none besides the merged paperclipai#10151. **Bug:** After paperclipai#10151, adapters that inject the `Paperclip task context` markdown (ACPX engine lanes, claude-local CLI, hermes server and gateway) receive the issue description twice in a single prompt — once in the wake prompt's `Issue description:` block and once in the task markdown. Separately, resume deltas re-send the full description (up to 12k characters) on every wake even though the persistent session already received it. **Expected behavior:** The description appears exactly once per prompt on every lane, and resume deltas only carry it when the resuming session may not have seen the brief (assignment-shaped or recovery wakes), leaving an explicit fetch breadcrumb otherwise. **Reproduction:** Wake a claude-local or ACPX agent on an issue with a description and inspect the assembled prompt: the description text appears in both the wake-payload block and the task-context block. Wake the same session again via a comment: the full description is present again in the resume delta. **Affected version:** Current `master` (with paperclipai#10151 merged). **Deployment mode:** Adapter-backed heartbeat execution, local and sandboxed lanes. ## What Changed - `renderPaperclipWakePrompt` accepts `suppressIssueDescription`; the four task-markdown lanes pass it so the task markdown stays the single, uncapped description carrier there. - Non-assignment resume deltas omit the description and emit `- issue description: omitted from this resume delta; fetch the issue if you need the latest brief`. Assignment-shaped reasons (`issue_assigned`, `issue_reopened_via_comment`, `issue_recovery_action_restored`, `issue_tree_restored`) and recovery wakes still deliver the full brief. - `buildPaperclipTaskMarkdown` gains `includeDescription`; the server now also publishes `context.paperclipTaskMarkdownCompact` (description stripped, directives and wake comment kept), and the new `selectPaperclipTaskMarkdown` helper picks the right variant under the same resume rules, falling back to the full markdown when no compact variant exists (version skew safety). - The wake prompt's description block now carries the same user-authored trust framing the task markdown already had. ## Verification - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/acp.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/acp.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts` — 137 tests passed, including new coverage for suppression, resume omission plus breadcrumb, assignment-shaped resume inclusion, compact-variant building, variant selection, and an end-to-end ACPX prompt-assembly test asserting the description appears exactly once on fresh wakes and not at all on comment resumes. - `npx vitest run` in `packages/adapters/hermes` — 59 tests passed, including a gateway execute-level test asserting the brief is sent exactly once on fresh runs and not re-sent on stable-session resumes. - `tsc --noEmit` in `packages/adapter-utils`, `packages/adapters/claude-local`, `packages/adapters/hermes` — clean; `server` matches the `master` baseline exactly (pre-existing plugin-sdk resolution errors only, none in touched files). - Pre-existing failures confirmed identical on clean `master`: claude-local `execute.remote.test.ts` / `test.probe.test.ts`, adapter-utils `mcp-isolation.integration.test.ts` (requires a newer local Claude CLI). ## Risks - Behavioral shift, prompt-only: a resumed session woken by a comment on an issue it never handled (rare — assignment wakes normally precede comment wakes) would not get the inline description; the breadcrumb plus the standard issue-fetch path covers it. - Additive context key (`paperclipTaskMarkdownCompact`); older adapters ignore it and newer adapters fall back to the full markdown when it is absent, so mixed-version deployments degrade to current behavior. - No schema, migration, or API changes; the structured wake-payload JSON shape is unchanged. - Known follow-up deliberately out of scope: openclaw embeds the raw wake-payload JSON (which still contains the description) in prompt text for machine parsing. The hermes-gateway lane is handled: it detects stable-session resumes (issue/agent session-key strategy plus a stored prior session id), compacts the task markdown, and omits the description from its prompt-embedded JSON copy. > This is a focused correctness/efficiency fix to existing wake plumbing and does not overlap with planned roadmap feature work. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking enabled, with repository tool use, shell execution, and local test execution via Claude Code. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details (execution-workspace branch, same convention as merged paperclipai#10202) - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (code-level docs; no user-facing docs affected) - [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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…le infra (paperclipai#10210) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI agents and their work > - Heartbeat execution relies on adapters distinguishing agent failures from failures in the harness running beneath the agent > - Codex MCP transport crashes can kill the CLI after the JSONL protocol has started but before it emits a protocol-terminal event > - Those interrupted streams were left unclassified, so the control plane terminalized the heartbeat as `heartbeat_failed` / `agent_failure` with no continuation > - Agent-level failure is already expressible through the JSONL protocol via an `error` event, `turn.failed`, or `turn.completed`, so an interrupted nonzero exit can be classified structurally without inspecting unstable error strings > - This pull request reports that shape as `codex_harness_crash` in the `transient_upstream` family and routes it through Paperclip's existing bounded retry and recovery-continuation paths > - The benefit is that transient Codex harness failures recover safely without misclassifying quoted agent output or depending on transport-specific wording ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - **What happened:** Codex MCP transport failures, including rmcp worker death, could terminate the CLI mid-turn after protocol output began but before any terminal JSONL event. The run then became an unclassified terminal heartbeat failure with `continuationCount: 0`; this occurred in 3 of 44 L3 Codex-lane trials during the associated benchmark investigation. - **Expected behavior:** a nonzero Codex exit after the protocol starts but before an `error`, `turn.failed`, or `turn.completed` event should be treated as a harness/infrastructure crash and enter the existing bounded retry policy. - **Why structural classification:** transport error strings vary, and stdout may quote agent output that merely discusses network failures. The protocol boundary identifies whether the agent itself produced a terminal result without regex matching. - **Recovery behavior:** `codex_harness_crash` maps to `errorFamily: transient_upstream`, using the existing `same_session` → `safer_invocation` → `fresh_session` ladder plus the recovery-continuation transient-infrastructure path. - Supersedes the regex-based approach in paperclipai#10150, which is closed. ## What Changed - Added protocol-state tracking that identifies a nonzero exit after protocol start and before any protocol-terminal event as `codex_harness_crash`. - Propagated the structural classification as `transient_upstream` through the Codex adapter. - Added parse unit coverage, including a faithful crash-shaped stream, without matching stderr transport strings. - Added adapter execution coverage using a fake Codex process that emits a protocol prefix and then dies with the observed rmcp stderr line. - Added heartbeat bounded-retry coverage, including the `errorCode`-only fallback, and recovery-continuation classification coverage. ## Verification - `parse.test.ts` — 16 passed. - `codex-local-execute.test.ts` — 16 passed. - `heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts` — 30 passed. - `service.pause-durability.test.ts` — 6 passed. - Server and Codex adapter TypeScript checks passed. - The branch commit is unchanged from the tested and pushed `88f5464d40` handoff. ## Risks - Low risk: the classification requires a nonzero exit after protocol start and before any protocol-terminal event, so normal agent-declared failures and completed turns keep their existing behavior. - The change intentionally broadens recovery for structurally interrupted Codex runs; bounded retry limits still prevent indefinite continuation loops. - No schema, migration, public API, UI, lockfile, or workflow changes. > 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. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size were not exposed by the execution environment; capabilities used for the implementation included repository analysis, reasoning, code editing, and terminal-based 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details — the pre-existing, already-pushed branch name was explicitly prescribed for this replacement PR - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
…erclipai#10205) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Status cards summarize changing company work and watch issues so later changes can produce useful deltas > - A summary can explicitly reference issues that are important to the update even when those issues do not match the card's configured queries > - Previously, those referenced issues were not retained in the watched set, so their later status, assignee, or comment changes could be missed > - The watched snapshot must avoid artificial additions or removals caused only by a summary changing which issues it references > - This pull request resolves issue references when a summary is written, persists them, and joins them to the watched snapshot with stable delta semantics > - The benefit is that status cards continue tracking the exact issues their latest update called out while keeping follow-up updates relevant and non-duplicative ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip (or can reproduce on `master`). - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself — not in my agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? When a status-card summary explicitly referenced an issue by identifier or `/issues/<uuid>` URL, that issue was not automatically retained in the card's watched set unless it independently matched a configured query. Later status, assignee, or comment changes to an issue highlighted by the latest update could therefore be omitted. ### Expected behavior References in the latest summary should resolve only within the card's company, appear in dry runs and the watched-issues UI, count and fingerprint like query matches, and enter or leave the watched set without artificial added/removed deltas already represented by the summary change. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create a status card whose query does not match a second issue in the same company. 2. Write a summary that references the second issue by identifier or issue URL. 3. Inspect the card's watched count or Watched issues tab. 4. Change the referenced issue's status, assignee, or comments and run the next update. 5. Before this change, the referenced issue is absent from the watched snapshot and its later change does not produce the expected delta. ### Paperclip version or commit - Reproduced on `master` before this PR (base commit `762ce5b4ef`). ### Deployment mode - Local dev (`pnpm dev`), built from source. ### Agent adapter(s) involved - Not adapter-specific (core bug). ### Database mode - Embedded Postgres test environment; the schema change uses standard PostgreSQL JSONB. ### Access context - Board (human operator). ## What Changed - Added migration `0191` and schema support for persisted `status_cards.mentioned_issue_ids`. - Resolved summary references by issue identifier or `/issues/<uuid>` URL within the status card's company when summaries are written. - Joined mentioned issues into watched counts and fingerprints so later status, assignee, and comment changes generate normal update deltas. - Suppressed artificial added/removed deltas when the latest summary starts or stops mentioning an issue. - Added `mentionedIssues` to dry-run responses and a “Mentioned in the latest update” group in the Watched issues tab. - Updated the summarizer prompt to explain that referenced issues automatically join the watched set. - Added focused server and UI coverage for reference resolution, snapshot behavior, deltas, API responses, and rendering. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/status-cards.test.ts src/__tests__/status-card-update-engine.test.ts` — 31 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/StatusCards/StatusCardTile.test.tsx` — 11 tests passed. - Earlier implementation verification also passed database/shared/server typechecks, UI `tsc -b`, the broader StatusCards UI test set, and embedded-Postgres migration application. ### Visual Verification - Greptile T-Rex ran Playwright browser checks successfully and captured the Status Card drawer Watched tab showing the new “Mentioned in the latest update” grouping: https://app.greptile.com/trex/runs/15796101/artifacts ## Risks - The migration adds a nullable JSONB column and is backward-compatible; existing cards have no mentioned issues until their next summary write. - Reference extraction is company-scoped to prevent cross-company issue association. - Watched counts and future fingerprints change for cards whose latest summaries reference issues; tests cover additions, removals, and suppression of spurious deltas. - This targeted status-card fix does not introduce a new roadmap subsystem or external integration. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Fable 5 (Paperclip model alias; exact underlying provider model ID and context window were not recorded in the implementation task metadata), with extended reasoning, tool use, and code execution. - OpenAI Codex coding agent (runtime model identifier and context window not exposed to this task) prepared the PR, rebased the branch, and ran focused verification with terminal 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Scheduled routines provide recurring control-plane work without manual intervention > - The new activity gate can suppress scheduled runs when no external work occurred > - The core scheduler and database support landed without a public create/update contract > - Agents, operators, and managed plugins need validated fields plus discoverable semantics to opt in safely > - This pull request exposes the activity gate through routine APIs, revisions, plugin contracts, tests, and skill documentation > - The benefit is backward-compatible control over idle scheduled work without losing activity-triggered follow-up ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs paperclipai#8534 ## What Changed - Added shared activity-gate policy and scope enums with create/PATCH validation. - Persisted activity-gate fields through routine creation, updates, revision snapshots, pipeline snapshots, and revision restores. - Defaulted legacy revision snapshots during restore and added regression coverage for pre-field snapshots. - Extended managed-plugin routine declarations, production reconciliation, and the SDK test harness to preserve non-default gate settings. - Added end-to-end API coverage for create/PATCH/list/detail round-trips, defaults, and invalid enum rejection. - Documented schedule-only semantics, activity windows, own-run/read-action exclusions, scopes, and an hourly quiet-night watcher example. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-e2e.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routines.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts -t 'activity gate|preserves declared activity gate settings|resolves routine agent and project refs'` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/workspace-routines.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - GitHub CI: all final-head checks green; Storybook visual regression skipped by path rules. - Greptile: 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks - Low risk: defaults remain `always` and `company`, preserving existing routine behavior and old revision snapshots. - Managed plugin manifests can now declare the same validated gate settings as the public routine API; omitted values retain core defaults. - Revision snapshots now include the new fields so policy changes are not lost or treated as no-ops during restore. > For core feature work, checked `ROADMAP.md`: this extends the existing Scheduled Routines roadmap item and does not duplicate a separate planned capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with repository tool use and code execution; context-window size was 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
…ed clock (paperclipai#10226) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server has a gateway layer that coordinates tool execution and runtime slots > - The idle-down test for the local stdio fixture slot was relying on real wall-clock timing > - On slower runners, that made the test nondeterministic because the slot could be reaped before the presence assertion ran > - This pull request switches the test to use the existing injectable clock seam so time only advances when the test says it should > - The benefit is that the idle-down behavior stays covered while the test becomes deterministic and no longer flakes under load ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This PR fixes a flaky gateway test in the server test suite. The `tool-gateway` idle-down scenario was asserting slot presence while also depending on a very short real-time idle TTL and a later sleep-based reap. On loaded runners, the intervening work could exceed the TTL, which caused the slot to disappear early and the assertion to see an empty list. The fix keeps the production code path unchanged and drives the test from the supervisor's existing injectable clock. The test now holds time steady through the presence check, then advances the clock past the idle deadline to trigger the reap deterministically. The original behavioral assertions stay intact: slot reuse, counter increments, metadata, and stop status still get verified. ## What Changed - Replaced the real-time idle-down wait in the `tool-gateway` test with the runtime supervisor's injectable clock seam. - Kept the existing assertions for slot reuse, slot identity, counters, metadata, and stop behavior. - Removed the test's dependency on wall-clock timing so the idle-down path is deterministic under load. ## Verification - Targeted server typecheck passed with `tsc --noEmit`. - `tool-gateway.test.ts` passed in full: 49/49. - The targeted idle-down scenario passed 50/50 in a tight loop with 0 failures after the clock injection change. ## Risks - Low risk: this is a test-only change and does not modify production gateway logic. - The test now exercises the idle-down logic through a controlled clock rather than real elapsed time, which is the point of the fix but does slightly reduce wall-clock realism in the test itself. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-5), tool-using coding agent; context window not surfaced in the 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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: Harold Kim <harold@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane people use to coordinate AI agents and their execution environments. > - Environment realization decides where an agent runs and which filesystem and toolchain are authoritative. > - Copy-based realization is unsafe for container-anchored tasks because absolute paths such as `/app` can point outside the synchronized tree and task-specific binaries may be absent. > - That mismatch can let an agent successfully verify work in a phantom writable path while sync-back silently discards the result. > - Existing task environments already provide the authoritative filesystem and toolchain, so they should be executed in place rather than copied. > - Copy mode still needs explicit confinement rules so aliases target the synchronized workspace and unsynchronized writable paths fail visibly. > - This pull request adds typed realization metadata, propagates the authoritative root through orchestration, and teaches Codex to honor it. > - The benefit is that container-anchored tasks operate on verifier-visible state with the intended tools, while copy mode remains safe and backward compatible. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this defect. GitHub duplicate searches for in-place execution, workspace realization, and authoritative workspace roots found no related pull request to link. ### What happened? Environment-backed agent runs were always realized through a copied workspace. Tasks anchored to absolute container paths could therefore write outside the synchronized tree, and task-provided toolchains were unavailable in the copy. A run could report success even though sync-back discarded its output. ### Expected behavior Existing task environments should run against their real authoritative root and toolchain. Copy-mode runs should map declared absolute aliases into the synchronized tree and reject writable paths that cannot be restored. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Run a Codex task environment whose required files live under `/app` or `/workspace` and whose required binary exists only in the task container. 2. Observe that copy realization changes the effective filesystem/toolchain or permits writes outside the synchronized root. 3. Complete and verify the task inside the agent sandbox. 4. Observe that the verifier cannot see out-of-tree artifacts or that task-specific commands were unavailable. ### Reproduction context - Paperclip commit: `3a16b91217483d2c233926de5b7f7bc3a1077924` - Deployment: built from source in a task-container execution environment - Adapter: Codex local - Database: not database-related - Access context: agent execution ## What Changed - Added typed `copy | in_place` workspace-realization metadata, authoritative roots, confined aliases, and outbound restore paths to shared execution-target contracts. - Selected in-place realization for existing task environments and skipped archive prepare/restore when the authoritative environment is used directly. - Propagated the authoritative root into adapter context so Codex uses it for cwd and `PAPERCLIP_WORKSPACE_*` semantics, including ACP execution. - Bound copy-mode aliases such as `/app` to the synchronized workspace and rejected writable out-of-tree paths without explicit restore mappings. - Added focused regression coverage while preserving existing copy-mode archive restore behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/local-process-sandbox.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/acp.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-run-orchestrator.test.ts` — 48 passed, 4 skipped. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY -u AWS_SESSION_TOKEN pnpm test:run` — passed across all general and serialized Vitest shards. - `pnpm build` — passed. - Codex `k=1` acceptance run completed July 24, 2026 at 23:54:30 UTC with 4 completed, 0 exceptions, and mean reward 1.0: `build-cython-ext`, `openssl-selfsigned-cert`, `prove-plus-comm`, and `sqlite-db-truncate` each received terminal grade 1.0 against real task-environment paths and toolchains. ## Risks - In-place mode deliberately exposes the authoritative task root to the adapter; incorrect environment metadata could point execution at the wrong root. Typed metadata and focused orchestration tests cover selection and propagation. - Copy-mode writable-path validation is stricter and may reject previously accepted unsafe configurations. The rejection is intentional and produces a visible error instead of silently losing output. - The acceptance run is focused on four Codex task-environment workloads, not a broad cross-adapter benchmark. Existing copy-mode archive tests and the full repository suite remain green. > 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 CLI coding agent; exact model ID and context-window size were not exposed to this runtime. Capabilities used: extended reasoning, repository editing, shell execution, test/build execution, Git, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
…clipai#10207) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Task watchdogs review issue subtrees when no run or queued wake keeps work live > - Pending human interactions and approvals are valid stopped states that still need one watchdog review > - The existing fingerprint included volatile activity timestamps, so unchanged stopped trees could wake repeatedly after comments, documents, work products, or sibling completions > - This pull request fingerprints only review-material leaf and wait state, persists the reviewed snapshot, and suppresses shrink-only repeats > - The benefit is one review per materially new stopped state without weakening liveness classification or hiding human waits ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### What happened? Task-watchdog stop fingerprints changed for metadata-only activity and completed siblings, producing duplicate wakes after an unchanged stop had already been reviewed. ### Expected behavior Pending interactions and approvals remain classified as stopped, but a reviewed stopped state only wakes again when waits, non-terminal leaves, status, assignment, or blockers gain material changes. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Review a stopped watched subtree with a pending human wait or multiple non-terminal stopped leaves. 2. Add only comment/document/work-product activity, or complete one stopped sibling without changing the wait set. 3. Observe a duplicate wake from the timestamp-heavy fingerprint. Related public work: Refs paperclipai#9452 for overlapping task-watchdog service edits and paperclipai#10043 for related no-op fingerprint suppression. ## What Changed - Added fingerprint v2 over non-terminal material leaves plus subtree-wide pending wait ids, excluding volatile timestamps while retaining them in wake context. - Added nullable observed/reviewed JSONB stop snapshots and shrink-only reviewed-state suppression with legacy exact-fingerprint fallback. - Added pending interaction kinds and approval ids to watchdog wake context, review comments, and comment metadata. - Added classifier and scheduler coverage for waiting-leaf liveness, metadata stability, sibling shrink suppression, material changes, snapshot promotion, legacy rows, and unchanged idempotency keys. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts` — 2 files, 36 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. ## Risks - Fingerprint version 2 intentionally re-fingerprints every currently stopped watched tree once after deployment, causing a one-time wake burst before the new reviewed snapshots are established. - Migration `0191_task_watchdog_stop_snapshots.sql` only adds two nullable JSONB columns with no backfill; legacy rows continue exact-fingerprint behavior until a post-deploy review promotes a snapshot. - PR paperclipai#9452 edits the same service file; whichever lands second may need a trivial rebase. > 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning mode, with repository tool use and code execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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>
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The inbox helps operators scan and act on tasks that need attention > - Inbox task rows currently include external-object summary markers alongside the core task information > - Those markers add a column of visual noise that is not needed for inbox triage > - External-object data must remain available to the inbox filters even when the row marker is removed > - This pull request stops passing external-object summaries into inbox rows and adds regression coverage > - The benefit is a cleaner inbox while preserving external-object filtering behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs paperclipai#4556 - **Problem:** Inbox task rows display external-object summary markers that operators do not need for triage. - **Expected behavior:** Inbox rows omit the external-object marker, while filters that depend on external-object summaries continue to work. ## What Changed - Removed the external-object summary prop from inbox task rows. - Added a regression test that provides external-object summary data and confirms the inbox row does not render its marker. - Kept external-object summary loading intact for inbox filtering. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — 18 tests passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — reproduces five pre-existing `paperclipai#9627` color-literal violations; this PR adds no token values or new gate violations. ## Risks - Low risk: the change removes one optional presentation prop from the inbox row call site and leaves filtering data flow unchanged. - Regression coverage verifies summary data no longer produces the removed inbox marker. > 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-5.4, tool-enabled coding agent with shell and code execution; reasoning enabled; context-window size 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
…package.json placeholder (paperclipai#10257) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work; it ships as a Docker image that self-hosters and managed deployments run. > - The server resolves its own version at runtime in `server/src/version.ts` (`resolveServerVersion()`), which feeds analytics and the server debug panel. > - That resolver derives the real version from `git describe`, and falls back to `server/package.json`'s `version` when git isn't available. > - But `server/package.json`'s version is a static placeholder — CI only stamps the real CalVer at publish, so in source it is never the real version (currently `0.3.1`). > - A Docker image has no `.git` (it's dockerignored), so `git describe` can't run inside it. Every image therefore falls back to the placeholder and reports `0.3.1` in analytics and the debug panel, regardless of which commit it was built from. > - This PR computes the real version once on the CI build runner (where `.git` and tags exist), bakes it into the image, and has `resolveServerVersion()` prefer that stamp when `git describe` is unavailable. > - The benefit: self-hosted and cloud images report their true version instead of a misleading placeholder, with no change to dev checkouts, `git describe`-based resolution, or local `docker build`. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists — describing the bug inline (per the bug report template). **What happened?** Docker images built from `master` (and release tags) report the server version as the `0.3.1` placeholder in analytics and the server debug panel, instead of the real version of the commit the image was built from. **Expected behavior** An image reports the real version of its build commit (e.g. `2026.722.0+51.git.<sha>`), so operators can tell which build is running. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Build the server Docker image from any `master` commit (the `Docker` workflow, `production` target). 2. Run the image and open the server debug panel (or inspect the version reported to analytics). 3. Observe the version is `0.3.1` rather than the commit's real version. **Root cause** `resolveServerVersion()` derives the real version from `git describe`, but the image has no `.git` (dockerignored), so it falls back to `server/package.json`'s `version` — a static placeholder CI only replaces with the real CalVer at publish time. Nothing bakes the real version into the image. **Paperclip version or commit:** reproduces on `master` (`4c55f0d8`) and any published image. **Deployment mode:** self-hosted and managed (both the `production` and `-cloud` images). **Installation method:** Docker image (`ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip`). **Related PRs (dedup search):** paperclipai#9103 (merged — added the `git describe`-based source-install resolution this builds on) and paperclipai#9637 (closed). Neither bakes a version into the image; this PR closes that gap. No duplicate found. ## What Changed - **`.github/workflows/docker.yml`** — checkout with full history + tags (`fetch-depth: 0`), and a new `Compute build version` step that runs `git describe --tags --match 'v*' --long --dirty` on the pristine runner checkout. The result is passed as a `PAPERCLIP_BUILD_VERSION` build-arg to both the `production` and `-cloud` image builds. - **`Dockerfile`** — the `production` stage takes an `ARG PAPERCLIP_BUILD_VERSION` (default empty) and bakes it into the runtime `ENV`; the `cloud` stage inherits it via `FROM production`. - **`server/src/build-version.ts`** (new) — `readBuildVersion()` / `parseBuildVersion()`, mirroring `build-commit.ts`: reads `PAPERCLIP_BUILD_VERSION` (or a `.paperclip-build-version` file) as a single-token stamp. - **`server/src/version.ts`** — `resolveServerVersion()` prefers the baked build version when `git describe` is unavailable, parsing it with the same rules as a live checkout (`parseGitDescribeVersion`), and falling through to the existing `build-commit` stamp and package version when unset. A live checkout's `git describe` still wins over any stamp. - Tests for the new behavior and the precedence. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk ensure-build-deps && tsc --noEmit` in `server/` — clean. - `vitest run server/src/__tests__/version.test.ts server/src/__tests__/build-version.test.ts` — **23 tests pass**, covering: stamped version used when git describe fails, stamp parsed to real CalVer, stamp preferred over the build-commit fallback, on-tag stamp collapses to the release version, a pre-resolved stamp used verbatim, and a live git describe still winning over a stamp. - `git describe --tags --match 'v*' --long` for this commit → `v2026.722.0-51-g<sha>`, which `resolveServerVersion()` reports as `2026.722.0+51.git.<sha>` — no longer `0.3.1`. - Not run locally: the full multi-arch image build (CI-only). The workflow change is verified by inspection; the version is computed on the pristine checkout before any lockfile refresh, so it carries no spurious `-dirty`. ## Risks Low. Additive and image-only: - No runtime behavior changes for dev checkouts (git describe still primary and wins over any stamp) or for local `docker build` (empty arg → server keeps its existing fallbacks). - Not a breaking change; no schema or API surface. The stamp is informational (version reporting only). - `fetch-depth: 0` makes the release-image checkout fetch full history/tags — a modest cost on a workflow that already runs at release cadence with a 60-minute budget. - Rollback: revert the commit; images simply return to reporting the placeholder. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`, 1M-context variant), extended thinking, with tool use / code execution — agentic edits, `tsc` + `vitest` runs, and a `git describe` resolution check. ## 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 (bugfix, not core feature work) - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above (paperclipai#9103, paperclipai#9637 — related, not duplicates) - [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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (`fix/build-version-stamp`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (no user-facing docs affected; behavior is documented inline in `version.ts` / `build-version.ts` and the workflow/Dockerfile) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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>
paperclipai#10221) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI agents for work > - Local process adapters can enforce network allowlists through a Unix-socket proxy inside the Linux sandbox > - The proxy socket was created under `os.tmpdir()`, which can be a deeply nested run-specific directory > - Linux Unix-domain socket paths are limited to 107 usable bytes, so deep temporary paths can be silently truncated during bind > - A truncated proxy socket resets every confined outbound connection, including the model provider API, before the agent can do work > - This pull request creates proxy sockets under the short `/tmp` path when possible and validates the path length before bind > - The benefit is reliable sandboxed egress under deep `TMPDIR` values and an explicit error instead of an opaque connection-reset storm ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I can reproduce this on upstream `master`. - [x] I confirmed the error originates in Paperclip's local-process sandbox proxy. ### What happened? Sandboxed local-process agents using `networkScope: "allowlist"` could lose all proxied egress when `TMPDIR` was deeply nested because `proxy.sock` exceeded Linux's Unix socket path limit. The truncated bind surfaced as repeated connection resets, including for provider API traffic. ### Expected behavior Proxy creation should use a Linux-safe short path and fail explicitly if no safe socket path can be created. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Set `TMPDIR` to a path long enough that `<TMPDIR>/paperclip-network-sandbox-XXXXXX/proxy.sock` exceeds 107 bytes. 2. Build or run a local-process sandbox with `networkScope: "allowlist"`. 3. Make an HTTP or HTTPS request through the generated sandbox proxy. 4. Observe connection resets from the overlong Unix socket path on affected code. ### Paperclip version or commit Upstream `master` before this change. ### Deployment mode Other — Linux local-process adapters using Bubblewrap network allowlisting. ### Installation method Built from source. ### Agent adapter(s) involved Codex and any other local-process adapter using the shared sandbox utility. ### Operating system Linux. ### Additional context GitHub search found no duplicate public issue or pull request for this defect. ## What Changed - Add a Linux Unix-socket byte-length guard that reports the unsafe path before binding. - Create network proxy temporary directories under `/tmp` first, with `os.tmpdir()` as a validated fallback. - Use the safe temporary-directory helper at both allowlist proxy creation sites while preserving trusted URL handling. - Add regression coverage that sets a deliberately deep `TMPDIR` and verifies the working socket remains within 107 bytes under `/tmp`. ## Verification - `node /srv/paperclip/home/paperclipai/paperclip/node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run packages/adapter-utils/src/local-process-sandbox.test.ts` — 8 passed, 4 environment-gated tests skipped. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. - Greptile Review — passed after reviewing 2 files with 0 comments and no unresolved threads; this repository integration did not emit a separate numeric confidence score. - Full GitHub CI matrix — passed after one rerun of an unrelated ACPX `ENOTEMPTY` cleanup flake. - Package typecheck was attempted, but the existing shared install cannot resolve `acpx/runtime`; the failure is outside the changed files and is expected to be covered by CI's clean dependency install. ## Risks - Low risk: the change is limited to Linux sandbox proxy temporary-directory selection and validation. - Systems without a writable `/tmp` fall back to `os.tmpdir()` only when the resulting socket path is safe; otherwise startup now fails loudly instead of producing connection resets. - No schema, API, UI, migration, or documentation behavior changes. > 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-5.3-codex`, tool-enabled coding agent with managed reasoning and code execution; context-window size is 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
…0323) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies > - Maintainers use the pr-gardening skill to keep referenced pull requests reviewable and moving toward merge > - The skill previously treated every recently referenced repository PR as owned work, including community PRs and stale references > - That oversized scope caused noisy reports, capped-search failures, and follow-up actions aimed at PRs this Paperclip instance should not manage > - The workflow also stopped at reminders instead of dispatching the repository's standard PR-preparation process > - This pull request scopes gardening to the authenticated instance identity by default and makes exclusions explicit and inspectable > - The benefit is a smaller, ownership-correct queue that automatically routes actionable PRs through the established preparation workflow ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this maintenance fix, so the bug report is included inline. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I searched existing open and closed issues and found no duplicate. - [x] The behavior reproduces on the current `master` branch. - [x] The behavior originates in Paperclip's repository skill, not an adapter, provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? The `pr-gardening` skill included community-authored and stale pull requests in its actionable candidate set, aborted when issue-to-PR extraction hit its cap, and only notified assignees rather than dispatching the standard PR-preparation workflow. ### Expected behavior By default, gardening should act only on PRs authored by the current GitHub identity, report excluded community and stale PRs explicitly, tolerate capped match sets, and dispatch actionable PRs through `/prepare-paperclip-pr`. Operators should retain explicit overrides for broader author scopes. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Run Stage A against issue history containing recently referenced PRs from both the authenticated operator and community contributors. 2. Include an issue whose PR-reference extraction reaches the configured match cap and an open PR with no activity inside the configured window. 3. Observe that the prior workflow admits non-owned and stale PRs, aborts on the capped extract, and leaves Stage C at assignee reminders. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on upstream `master` at `2568bdecc4577c60d76d58a45c5eaf3dc58f7e13`. ### Deployment mode Local repository skill execution. ### Installation method Built from source. ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific; this is a repository maintenance skill. ### Database mode Not database-related. ### Access context Agent execution using the repository's authenticated GitHub CLI identity. ### Node.js version Current repository development environment. ### Operating system Linux. ### Relevant logs or output Live verification before the fix showed 264 community PRs entering discovery scope. The corrected discovery retained 54 candidates, all authored by `cryppadotta`. ### Relevant config Default author resolution via `gh api user --jq .login`; no secret or user-specific configuration is included. ### Additional context The fix retains `--authors` and `--include-community` overrides for intentionally broader maintenance runs. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I reviewed all included output and configuration details for secrets and PII. ## What Changed - Resolve the default author allowlist from the authenticated `gh` login, with `--authors` and `--include-community` overrides. - Default the activity window to 14 days and record community-authored and stale PRs in explicit dropped lists. - Preserve capped issue-extract match sets with warnings instead of aborting discovery. - Add PR author and a one-line purpose summary to readiness data and rendered reports. - Rewrite Stage C to dispatch `/prepare-paperclip-pr` for PRs that need gardening. - Expand the focused Node test suite to cover the new scoping, stale-drop, cap, summary, reporting, and guardrail behavior. ## Verification - `node --test .agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` — 15/15 passing, including contributor-controlled Markdown escaping. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — clean. - Live discovery verification excluded 264 community PRs and retained 54 candidates, all authored by `cryppadotta`. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate behavioral risk: default candidate scope is intentionally narrower; operators who want community PRs must opt in with `--include-community` or provide `--authors`. - The authenticated `gh` login must be available unless an explicit author override is supplied. - No database, API, UI, migration, workflow, or dependency-lock changes. > 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 using GPT-5.4 with reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, GitHub CLI access, and focused test execution. The original implementation commit also records Claude Fable 5 assistance. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
…om the card (paperclipai#10892) <!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The decisions desk shows pending decisions that need an operator response > - A strict decision cannot apply its effects after its target task changes > - A decision still remained pending when every target task finished after proposal > - The card also linked only the origin task, even when the decision acted on another task > - This pull request expires those moot decisions and links their target tasks > - The benefit is an accurate queue and a clear path to the work that each decision affects ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related PR: paperclipai#10801 removes the issue-page decision strip, which makes clear queue provenance more important. **What happened?** A strict decision stayed pending until its time-to-live limit after every target task reached `done`. The decision card linked only the origin task. The origin task is where the agent proposed the decision, and it can differ from the task that the decision affects. An operator could therefore open a finished task with no visible decision and no explanation of the real target. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must expire a strict decision when all of its targets finish after the decision is proposed. The card must show and link every target task that differs from the origin task. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a strict decision that targets an active task from a different origin task. 2. Move the target task to `done` without resolving the decision. 3. Run the decision expiry sweep. 4. Observe that the old code keeps the decision open until its time-to-live limit. 5. Observe that the old card links only the origin task. **Paperclip version or commit** The bug reproduces on upstream `master` before this pull request. **Deployment mode** Local dev and self-hosted server modes are affected because the behavior is in the shared decision service and board UI. ## What Changed - Expire an open strict decision with reason `target_completed` when every strict target reached `done` after proposal. - Keep decisions that intentionally target an already-finished task. - Keep lenient-only decisions open. - Keep continuation delivery consistent with other expiry reasons. - Add target-task links to the decision card provenance line. - Use one shared target-ID helper across signing, execution, expiry, card provenance, and resolver preloading. - Add service and UI regression tests for primary, secondary, and target-completed cases. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/DecisionCard.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/decisions-service.test.ts` — 51 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. ## Risks - Low migration risk. This change does not alter the database schema. - The expiry sweep performs the existing strict-target query and adds a snapshot comparison before expiry. - A decision remains open if any strict target is active or if a target was already `done` at proposal time. > The roadmap lists work queues as planned. This pull request fixes the existing decisions desk. It does not add a new queue subsystem. ## Model Used - Implementation: Anthropic Claude through Claude Code. The runtime did not expose the exact model snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. - PR preparation: OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a dated model snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task assignment policies control which agents can receive work. > - Protected-agent policy flags currently stop assignment. > - The existing error says that the assignment requires approval. > - Paperclip has no approval workflow for this policy. > - This pull request models the policy as a hard block and gives the operator an action that exists. > - The benefit is accurate API guidance without weakening the existing fail-closed behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs paperclipai#6386 **What happened?** A protected-agent assignment denial said that approval was required. No approval record or approval action existed for this policy, so the message sent agents and operators to a dead end. **Expected behavior** The authorization result must state that protected-agent policy blocks assignment. It must tell a company administrator to remove the block before retrying. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Set `authorizationPolicy.protectedAgent.requiresApproval` to `true` on a target agent. 2. Give another agent the `tasks:assign` permission. 3. Preview or attempt assignment to the protected agent. 4. Observe that the old response promises an approval step that does not exist. **Paperclip version or commit** `c54936e2e9` on `master`. **Deployment mode** Built from source. The behavior is in the core authorization service and is not deployment-specific. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. ## What Changed - Added canonical `protectedAgent.blockAssignment` and `protectedAgent.blockReason` policy fields. - Kept the legacy approval-named flags as fail-closed compatibility aliases. - Changed denial copy to name the hard block and the administrator action. - Added authorization and plugin-host regression coverage for canonical and legacy policy data. - Updated the V1 implementation contract with the protected-assignment rule. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-access-authorization-host-services.test.ts` — 2 files passed, 61 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared build` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean. - `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` — passed. The repository-wide local wrappers exceeded the execution host resource limit before they printed a final summary. The PR check loop will use GitHub CI as the complete test and build authority. ## Risks - Low: assignment remains fail-closed. The change corrects the policy name and denial guidance. - Low: legacy fields remain supported, so existing plugin-owned policy data does not change behavior. - Low: the new policy schemas allow unknown keys for forward compatibility, as the existing authorization policy schema already does. > 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, exact model ID `gpt-5`, tool-enabled coding agent with reasoning, shell, Git, and GitHub CLI access. The runtime does not expose the context-window size. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
…10891) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Operators use issue pages to read task state and control task work > - The issue header showed separate summaries for open decisions and review paths > - These summaries repeated state that belongs in the Decisions view > - The extra sections added noise before the issue description and thread > - This pull request removes both header summaries and keeps decision actions in the Decisions view > - The benefit is a simpler issue header with one place for decision work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The issue detail header shows separate pending-decision and review-path sections. **Subsystem affected** `ui/` — React and Vite board UI. **Current behavior** An issue header can show a decision strip and a larger review panel before the issue content. **Proposed behavior** The issue header does not show either decision section. Operators continue to manage decisions and stalled reviews in the Decisions view. **Reason and benefit** This removes duplicate decision state from the issue header and reduces visual noise. **Breaking changes** The issue page no longer provides these summaries or shortcuts. Decision data, review state, and the Decisions view do not change. ## What Changed - Removed the pending-decision strip and review-path panel from the issue detail header. - Deleted the two unused header components and the panel-specific test. - Kept stalled-review actions and their Storybook examples in the Decisions queue. - Added an issue-detail regression test that covers both removed sections. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` (46 tests passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm build-storybook` - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Low risk. This change removes two issue-header surfaces. It does not change decision APIs or data. - Users must open the Decisions view to find pending decisions and stalled-review actions. > This change does not duplicate planned core work in `ROADMAP.md`. GitHub searches found no related open issue or pull request. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context window are not exposed. Tool use and 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators often open self-hosted Paperclip over plain HTTP on a LAN or private network. > - Browser Clipboard API writes are not reliable in that insecure context. > - Paperclip already has one shared helper with a legacy copy fallback, but many current copy actions bypass it. > - This pull request routes every core UI copy action and the first-party workspace-diff plugin through the shared helper. > - The benefit is consistent copy behavior on HTTPS, localhost, and plain-HTTP private deployments. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs paperclipai#3529. This change supersedes the stale prior attempt in paperclipai#3531. Current master has more copy surfaces and a first-party plugin UI bridge that the prior branch does not cover. ## What Changed - Replaced direct Clipboard API writes and duplicate fallback implementations across the current core UI with `copyTextToClipboard`. - Added an HTTP-safe clipboard function to the plugin UI SDK and wired the host bridge to the same implementation. - Migrated the first-party workspace-diff plugin to the plugin SDK clipboard function. - Added unit coverage for native rejection fallback and plugin host delegation. - Added a source-level regression test that rejects new direct clipboard writes outside the shared implementation. - Documented the plugin UI clipboard function. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ...` for 14 affected suites: 164 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run tests/ui-clipboard.test.ts` in `packages/plugins/sdk`: 1 test passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm -r typecheck`: passed for 31 workspace projects. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm test:run`: passed. - `NODE_ENV=production pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed with all gates clean. ## Risks Low risk. Secure contexts still use the modern Clipboard API. Plain HTTP and rejected modern writes use the existing `execCommand("copy")` fallback. That API is deprecated, but it is the compatibility path required for insecure contexts. The change has no schema, API, or visual design effect. > 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-5.6-sol`. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. Reasoning, tool use, repository editing, test execution, and GitHub CLI access 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
…d git workspaces (paperclipai#10873) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - When an agent runs on a different host (sandbox or SSH), the adapter transport copies the local git execution workspace to that host and syncs changes back after the run > - The transport materializes the remote copy with `git init` plus a depth-1 or bundle fetch, so the copy has no `origin` remote and its head reads as a parentless snapshot commit > - An agent asked to publish its branch (push it, open a pull request) sees "no remote, root snapshot" and must hand the publish step back to a human operator, even when the branch base is a commit the upstream remote already holds > - This pull request carries the workspace's `origin` URL (credential-scrubbed) onto the transported copy as metadata > - The benefit is that branches produced in transported workspaces stay publishable by any actor with credentials, while the transport itself still never fetches or pushes ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. Description follows the enhancement template: **What existing behavior does this improve?** The workspace transport in `@paperclipai/adapter-utils` already copies a git workspace to the execution host and back. This change improves the fidelity of that copy: the transported repo keeps the workspace's `origin` remote instead of losing it. **Subsystem affected** Adapter utilities — the sandbox transport (`withShallowGitWorkspaceClone` in `packages/adapter-utils/src/git-workspace-sync.ts`) and the SSH transport (`importGitWorkspaceToSsh` in `packages/adapter-utils/src/ssh.ts`). **Current behavior** The transported copy is built with `git init` plus a depth-1 (sandbox) or bundle (SSH) fetch. It has no remotes. `git remote -v` is empty and the head commit reads as a root snapshot with no visible ancestry. Agents and operators inside the execution host cannot fetch real ancestry or push a branch, even when the branch base is a commit the upstream remote already holds. **Proposed behavior** The transport reads the source workspace's `origin` URL, scrubs credentials from it, and configures it on the transported copy. The sandbox path adds the remote to the fresh clone. The SSH path sets or adds the remote in the remote setup script, which also covers reused workspace directories. A workspace with no `origin` transports exactly as before. **Reason and benefit** A branch committed in a transported workspace becomes publishable in place: the shallow boundary commit already exists on the remote, so a push pack closes without full local ancestry (a new test locks in this property). Fetching real ancestry also becomes possible for whoever holds credentials. Without this, agents must describe their change in a handoff document and a human must reconstruct the branch by hand. **Breaking changes** None. The URL copy is best-effort and metadata-only. The transport never fetches from or pushes to the remote. The no-remote-git contract holds: sync-back through the local cwd stays the only cross-run persistence path, and `packages/adapters/AUTHORING.md` gains a paragraph that makes the carried-remote nuance explicit. ## What Changed - `packages/adapter-utils/src/git-workspace-sync.ts`: new `sanitizeGitRemoteUrl` (strips http(s) userinfo, where tokens can be embedded; scp-like/ssh forms and filesystem paths pass through) and `readSanitizedOriginRemoteUrl`; `withShallowGitWorkspaceClone` configures the scrubbed `origin` on the fresh clone, best-effort. - `packages/adapter-utils/src/ssh.ts`: `importGitWorkspaceToSsh` sets or adds the scrubbed `origin` in the remote setup script, non-fatal under `set -e`. - `packages/adapter-utils/src/git-workspace-sync.test.ts`: four new integration cases (remote copied, credentials scrubbed, no-origin unchanged, push from the shallow clone to an origin that holds the base commit) plus `sanitizeGitRemoteUrl` unit tests. - `packages/adapters/AUTHORING.md`: documents that a transported copy may carry a credential-scrubbed `origin` as metadata, and why this does not weaken the no-remote-git contract. ## Verification - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/git-workspace-sync.test.ts` — 12/12 pass (4 new integration cases + sanitizer unit tests). - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-managed-runtime.test.ts` — 24/24 pass. - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/ssh-fixture.test.ts` — 16/16 pass, including the `no-remote-git contract` case (a workspace without `origin` still round-trips with no remote introduced at any point). - `node scripts/check-no-git-push.mjs` — passes; this change adds no push or fetch to adapter/runtime code. - `pnpm typecheck` in `packages/adapter-utils` — clean. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is additive metadata on the transported copy only; failure to record the remote never fails the transport. - Credential exposure is the real hazard and is handled: http(s) userinfo is stripped before the URL leaves the host. Non-http forms (scp-like, `ssh://`) carry no secret in the URL and pass through. - A reused SSH workspace whose project `origin` changed now gets the current URL via `set-url` instead of keeping a stale one. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), Anthropic — extended thinking, agentic tool use via Claude Code CLI. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Daytona sandbox provider lives in `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona` > - That plugin depends on `@daytonaio/sdk` for session control and command execution > - The stable SDK version moved forward, but the plugin still used an older pin > - This pull request pins the SDK to the current stable release and keeps the package build and tests green > - The benefit is the plugin uses the current client surface with a very small change set ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Daytona plugin keeps an older `@daytonaio/sdk` pin than the current stable release. **Current behavior** The plugin depends on `^0.171.0`. **Proposed behavior** The plugin pins `@daytonaio/sdk` to `0.203.0`. **Reason and benefit** The plugin uses the current stable client. The build and the existing tests still pass with the real 0.203.0 types. The change keeps the tracked diff small. **Breaking changes** None. The package manifest changes only the SDK pin. The workspace package is excluded from the root lockfile. **Additional context** Refs paperclipai#7333, which updated the same package to `0.183.0`. ## What Changed - Updated `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/package.json` to pin `@daytonaio/sdk` at `0.203.0`. - Kept the change limited to the plugin package manifest. ## Verification - `pnpm run build` in the plugin directory passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --config packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/vitest.config.ts` passed. - `git status` showed only the one-line manifest change before the PR open step. - `git fetch origin chore/daytona-sdk-0-203-0` returned `d2592644e80dfac2cfae6d9ccc2188267fe75758`. - `git diff --stat origin/master...HEAD` showed only the one manifest file change. ## Risks - Low risk. The change only updates a package pin. - The plugin build and tests already passed against the new SDK surface. - A future SDK release could need a follow-up pin update. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool-use 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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>
…ai#10909) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue thread confirmations can pause an issue until a board user makes a decision > - Atomic checkout is the only supported transition into `in_progress` > - An accepted confirmation left a creator-owned issue in `in_review` while it started a continuation worker > - The worker could run without the normal checkout state transition > - This pull request returns that narrow review state to `todo` before it queues the continuation wake > - The benefit is that the worker can check out the issue and move it to `in_progress` through the normal atomic path ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue exists. The following pull requests are related but do not fix this case: - Refs paperclipai#10376. It handles refusal paths for user-owned issues. - Refs paperclipai#8516. It handles rejected confirmations for user-owned issues. - Refs paperclipai#10274. It gives ownerless waking interactions an agent owner. **What happened?** An agent created a confirmation on an issue that was assigned to that same agent and had status `in_review`. A board user accepted the confirmation. Paperclip started a continuation worker, but the issue stayed `in_review`. The normal checkout fields stayed empty. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must return the issue to an actionable state before it wakes the continuation worker. The worker must then use atomic checkout to move the issue to `in_progress`. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign an issue to an agent and set the issue status to `in_review`. 2. Let that agent create a `request_confirmation` with `wake_assignee_on_accept`. 3. Accept the confirmation as a board user. 4. Observe that the continuation worker starts while the issue remains `in_review`. **Paperclip version or commit** The bug reproduced on master before this pull request. This branch is based on `ffd62a4cbb`. **Deployment mode** Local development. The server logic is deployment-independent. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Codex exposed the bug, but the issue-thread continuation logic is adapter-independent. **Database mode** The regression test uses embedded PostgreSQL. The logic is database-mode independent. **Access context** An agent creates the confirmation. A board user accepts it. ## What Changed - Allow an accepted agent-authored confirmation to return an agent-owned issue only when the issue is `in_review` and the owner is the creating agent. - Keep active `in_progress` work unchanged so an accepted confirmation cannot reset a running worker to `todo`. - Add embedded-PostgreSQL regression coverage for user-owned review, creator-owned review, and creator-owned active work. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts --config vitest.config.ts` — 48 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all workspace projects. - `pnpm build` — passed for all workspace projects. - `pnpm test:run` — 3,411 passed. Three timing-sensitive assertions failed in the unchanged `heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts` suite. - Isolated rerun of `heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts` — 15 passed. ## Risks Low risk. The behavior change is limited to accepted confirmations on non-terminal `in_review` issues that the creating agent already owns. It does not change active work, blocked work, terminal issues, other agent owners, schemas, or public API contracts. > This is a focused bug fix. It does not add roadmap scope. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code editing, Git, 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
…er (paperclipai#10917) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - On Paperclip Cloud a tenant instance holds exactly one company, and the cloud control plane pushes the stack's uploaded workspace icon into that company's branding. > - The cloud-mode organization switcher trigger always rendered the deterministic monogram, so an uploaded organization logo never appeared in the app chrome. > - This pull request renders the trigger through the tenant company's logo and brand color, with the monogram as the fallback. > - The benefit is that the logo a customer uploads for their organization actually shows up inside their Paperclip app. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing public issue found (searched open/closed PRs and issues for "organization logo", "switcher logo", "company logo cloud" — closest related PR is paperclipai#10850, which introduced the cloud-mode switcher). Describing in-PR: **Subsystem affected** Board UI: the sidebar organization switcher in Paperclip Cloud mode (`SidebarCompanyMenu`). **Problem or motivation** A Cloud customer uploads an organization logo when creating their workspace; the control plane syncs it into the tenant company's branding (`company.logoUrl`). But the cloud branch of the switcher trigger rendered `StackIcon` — monogram-only by design for stack rows — for the trigger too, ignoring `selectedCompany.logoUrl`. Result: the uploaded logo never appears in the app chrome; users see a letter tile instead. **Proposed solution** Add a `CurrentStackIcon` for the trigger that passes the selected company's `logoUrl`/`brandColor` into `CompanyPatternIcon`, seeded by the stack display name. Falls back to the exact previous monogram when no logo is set. Stack rows are unchanged: the portfolio payload deliberately carries no hot-linkable icon URL for other stacks. **Alternatives considered** Fetching per-stack icons for the rows was rejected: the cloud portfolio payload carries no icon URLs (embedding signed, expiring control-plane URLs would be wrong), and the defect is the current organization's chrome, which the already-synced company logo covers. ## What Changed - `ui/src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.tsx`: cloud-mode trigger renders the tenant company logo (fallback: monogram); stack rows untouched; self-hosted path untouched. - `ui/src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.test.tsx`: new regression test that the trigger carries the company logo while stack rows keep monograms; the `CompanyPatternIcon` mock now exposes `logoUrl`. ## Verification - `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.test.tsx`: 12/12 pass (11 existing + 1 new). - `pnpm --dir ui exec tsc --noEmit`: clean. ## Risks - Cloud-only rendering branch; self-hosted trigger rendering is untouched. - If the branding sync has not run yet, the trigger shows the same monogram as before — no regression, and it upgrades in place once `logoUrl` arrives. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), Anthropic. The run used extended reasoning, repository tools, shell execution, and GitHub integration. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…tion is running (paperclipai#10899) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - When an agent run ends without recording a disposition, Paperclip raises a "missing disposition" handoff so the work does not silently stall > - The server already tracks whether such an issue has a live continuation (a running or queued run, or a queued wake) in `successfulRunHandoff.hasLiveContinuation` > - But no UI surface read that flag, so an issue that an agent was actively working on still showed the "This task still needs a next step" banner, a loud thread warning, and "Needs next step" badges > - This pull request makes every missing-disposition complaint respect liveness: warn only when no live agent is on the issue and it is really stuck > - The benefit is that users see the warning only when action is needed, and the noise disappears while an agent is already handling the issue ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. Description follows the bug-report template: **What happened?** An issue that a live agent run was actively working on showed the "missing disposition" warning banner, a loud thread notice, and "Needs next step" badges at the same time. The API payload for that issue showed `successfulRunHandoff.required: true` together with `hasLiveContinuation: true` and a `liveRunId`, but the UI ignored the liveness fields. **Expected behavior** The missing-disposition warning appears only when the issue has no live run or queued wake. A live agent records a disposition when its run ends. Paperclip complains only if the run ends and no disposition exists. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let a run finish on an in-progress issue without a disposition. Paperclip raises the handoff and queues a corrective wake. 2. Open the issue page while the corrective run (or any new run) is live. 3. See the banner, the badges, and the loud thread notice — all visible while the agent works. **Paperclip version or commit** Current `master` (reproduced at commit 6ffe9df). **Deployment mode** Self-hosted development instance. ## What Changed - `isSuccessfulRunHandoffRequired` (ui lib) returns `false` while a live continuation exists. This quiets the Kanban card badge and the issues-list badge. Exception: when the only continuation is a not-yet-promoted scheduled retry, the notice stays visible so the **Retry now** control stays reachable. - `IssueBlockedNotice` also checks the real-time live-run set (`liveIssueIds`). A run that starts after the issue payload was fetched hides the banner at once. - `IssueChatThread` derives an effective handoff state from the live runs it already tracks. The loud "Missing issue disposition" thread notice folds into the quiet collapsed row while a continuation is live, and unfolds if the run ends without a disposition. - Server: `hydrateSuccessfulRunHandoffLiveness` now hydrates escalated handoffs too. The blocked-inbox `missing_disposition` attention is suppressed for escalated handoffs with a live run or wake. This matches the existing required-state suppression. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx` — 106 tests pass, including 6 new tests for the live/stale/scheduled-retry matrix - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx src/components/KanbanBoard.test.tsx src/lib` — pass - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts` — pass, including new escalated-liveness cases - `pnpm typecheck` clean in `ui` and `server`; `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` clean - Manual check: a live issue's API payload showed `required: true` with `hasLiveContinuation: true` and a `liveRunId` while the banner was still on screen; with this change that state renders no complaint ## Risks - Behavioral shift only; no schema or migration changes. All complaints reappear as soon as the continuation stops without a disposition, so nothing can get lost permanently. - A queued wake counts as a live continuation. If a wake sits queued for a long time, the warning stays hidden for that time. The blocked-inbox path already behaved this way; the UI now matches it. - The scheduled-retry carve-out keeps the current Retry-now workflow intact. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), Anthropic — agentic coding session with extended thinking and tool use (file edit, shell, 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…ai#10908) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip separates workspace provisioning lifecycle from whether the work was actually delivered. > - Git ancestry alone cannot recognize squash merges or deliveries into a branch other than the workspace base. > - A merged pull request linked from a terminal issue is stronger delivery evidence for those cases. > - The read contract should expose that evidence without changing persisted workspace schema. > - Cleanup must remain conservative: terminal descendants, delivered work, and no active run checkout are all required. > - Reusing the existing cleanup primitives keeps service shutdown, lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival behavior consistent. > - Focused regression coverage locks in both the honest read signal and the fail-closed reaper guards. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Execution workspace close-readiness payloads and terminal workspace cleanup. **Current behavior** Delivered squash-merged or cross-branch workspaces can remain `active` and report a permanent “not merged” warning because git ancestry does not contain their original commits. **Proposed behavior** Read payloads distinguish PR-confirmed delivery, ancestry delivery, unmerged work, and unknown state. Fully terminal delivered workspace trees are archived only when no active run holds the checkout. **Reason and benefit** Operators and automation receive an honest delivery signal, while shipped worktrees stop looking active forever and genuinely unmerged work retains its warning. **Breaking changes** The workspace payload gains a derived field. Existing fields and persistence remain unchanged; no database migration is required. **What happened?** A delivered workspace can remain `active` and warn that it is not merged forever after its issue ships through a squash or cross-branch pull request. **Expected behavior** Pull-request delivery should be represented honestly, and a fully terminal delivered workspace should become cleanup-eligible when no run holds its checkout. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an issue workspace with commits ahead of its configured base. 2. Deliver those commits with a squash merge or into a different target branch. 3. Mark the source issue and descendants done, then read workspace close readiness. Before this change, the workspace remains active with a “not merged” warning indefinitely. ## What Changed - Added the derived `deliveryState` workspace contract: `merged_via_pr`, `merged_by_ancestry`, `unmerged`, or `unknown`. - Extracted a shared GitHub pull-request merge classifier and reused it for merge confirmations and workspace delivery checks. - Suppressed false ancestry warnings when a terminal issue has ground-truth merged-PR evidence. - Added an idempotent terminality reaper with descendant-terminal, active-run, and delivered-work guards. - Restricted PR delivery evidence to the source issue, then required live merged state plus matching GitHub repository, head branch, and current workspace HEAD; persisted status, stale PRs, lexical mentions, inbound references, and descendant PRs cannot authorize cleanup. - Preserved workspaces with modified or untracked files even when their committed HEAD was delivered. - Bounded both long-lived pull-request state caches to 1,000 entries with oldest-entry eviction. - Routed eligible workspaces through existing runtime shutdown, lease cleanup, activity logging, and archival machinery with exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks plus non-forced removal. - Added regression coverage for delivery derivation, warning behavior, reaper guards, scheduler wiring, and squash/cross-branch delivery. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 63 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts --reporter=verbose` after review hardening — 43 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts src/__tests__/merged-pr-confirmation-sweep.test.ts src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts --reporter=dot` on the final local head — 73 passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 15 passed - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` — server 3,662 passed (4 skipped), UI 3,599 passed, CLI 327 passed, shared 415 passed, and skills catalog 20 passed; the aggregate DB stage ran both source and built copies of one unrelated embedded-Postgres migration test and both reached its 5-second timeout - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/status-card-migrations.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — isolated aggregate-timeout verification passed in 3.99 seconds - `NODE_ENV=production pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` ## Risks The reaper intentionally fails closed when issue terminality, pull-request state, git ancestry, or checkout ownership cannot be proven. GitHub lookups can delay classification and cleanup but cannot cause an unproven workspace to be archived. Automated terminal archival holds exclusive Git index, HEAD, and branch-ref locks across validation and removal, skips configured destructive hooks, and uses non-forced removal so dirty writes fail closed. Reopening a source issue does not restore an archived workspace; it emits an audit event so a human or agent can re-provision explicitly. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. Reasoning, tool use, repository editing, test execution, and GitHub CLI access 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses CI to keep control-plane changes safe and mergeable. > - The PR workflow splits serialized server tests across isolated runners. > - A recent successful run spent 305 seconds in serialized shard 2/4. > - That job was the slowest check in the run. > - The four shards reported about 739 seconds of Vitest suite time. > - This pull request adds a fifth serialized shard and keeps release verification aligned. > - The benefit is a shorter PR critical path with no loss of test coverage. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The PR and release verification workflows run serialized server tests in four shards. **Current behavior** Successful PR run 30876682788 spent 305 seconds in `Verify serialized server suites (2/4)`. The test step used 256 seconds and made this job the slowest check. **Proposed behavior** Run the same serialized suite set in five complete and non-overlapping shards. **Reason and benefit** The measured suites reported about 739 seconds of total Vitest time. Five runners reduce the expected average suite time from about 185 seconds to about 148 seconds before setup overhead. **Breaking changes** None. The change only alters CI partition size. ## What Changed - Split serialized server tests into five shards in the PR workflow. - Apply the same five-shard layout to release verification. - Add a partition test that proves complete and non-overlapping serialized coverage. - Update release workflow coverage tests for five shards. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Low risk. CI uses one additional runner for the serialized lane. - Round-robin partition weights can still vary as suite timings change. > This change does not overlap with planned core work in `ROADMAP.md`. Related PR paperclipai#10663 optimized the separate general-server lane. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, agentic coding with reasoning, tool use, and code 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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: Devin Foley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com>
…ons (paperclipai#10925) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The PR workflow runs the server vitest suite across sharded runners because the suite is pinned to one worker. > - In successful PR run 30930345729 (2026-08-04), shard `server (3/4)` took 311 seconds of wall time and was the slowest check in the run. > - The suite has grown to about 946 seconds of serial vitest time, but the duration manifest was last sampled on 2026-08-01 at about 882 seconds. > - This pull request refreshes the per-suite duration manifest from that run's logs and splits the lane into five shards. > - The benefit is a shorter PR critical path: each shard carries about 196 seconds of suite time, level with the other lanes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs paperclipai#10663 (previous split of this lane into four shards). Related: paperclipai#10923 splits the separate serialized-suites lane into five shards. Both PRs touch `.github/workflows/pr.yml` in different matrix blocks; whichever merges second needs a trivial rebase. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The `general-server` vitest lane runs in four shards with a duration manifest sampled on 2026-08-01. **Current behavior** In PR run 30930345729, shard 3/4 ran for 311 seconds (273 seconds in the test step) and was the longest check in the run. The suite now totals about 946 seconds of serial vitest time. **Proposed behavior** Run the same suite set in five shards, balanced with a per-suite duration manifest refreshed from that run's shard logs (279 suites measured by diffing consecutive completion timestamps). **Reason and benefit** The refreshed LPT partition balances at about 196 seconds of suite time per shard (about 240 seconds per job), level with the other PR lanes. No test coverage is lost. **Breaking changes** None. The change only alters the CI partition size and the duration manifest. ## What Changed - Bump the `general-server` shard matrix in `.github/workflows/pr.yml` from four to five shards. - Refresh `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` from the 2026-08-04 run's shard logs. - Update `SHARD_COUNT` in `scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` to five. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` — 9/9 pass, including the complete non-overlapping partition proof and the duration-balance check. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` — 2/2 pass. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` — 7/7 pass. - A 5-way dry-run partition covers all suites exactly once with equal projected weights. ## Risks - Low risk. The change only alters CI partition size and duration weights; the suite set is unchanged. - One more runner is used per PR run for this lane. - Stale duration weights degrade gracefully: suites missing from the manifest get the median weight. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), Claude Code CLI, model ID `claude-fable-5`, extended thinking with tool use 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (workflow comments explain the new shard math) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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: Claude <claude@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
…tal chip (paperclipai#10924) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Instance Settings area exposes an Experimental page that lists opt-in feature toggles as cards. > - New experimental features were appended to the list over time, so the cards sat in insertion order with no predictable arrangement. > - An unordered list is hard to scan when you are looking for one specific feature. > - Each card also carried a small "Experimental" secondary badge, which is redundant on a page that is itself titled Experimental. > - This pull request sorts every card alphabetically by its title and removes that redundant badge. > - The benefit is a list that is faster to scan and headings that are less cluttered. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change, so the enhancement is described inline following `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml`: **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Instance Settings → Experimental page, which lists opt-in feature toggles as a stack of cards. **Subsystem affected** UI — the Instance Experimental settings page (`ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.tsx`). **Current behavior** Cards render in insertion order (the order features happened to be added), so finding a specific feature means scanning the whole list. Several headings also carry a redundant "Experimental" secondary badge. **Proposed behavior** Cards render top-to-bottom in A→Z order by title, and no card shows an "Experimental" secondary badge. Toggle logic, footnotes, conditional visibility, and the "Managed by Paperclip Cloud" badge are unchanged. **Reason and benefit** Alphabetical order makes the list predictable and quick to scan for a specific feature. The "Experimental" badge repeats information already conveyed by the page title, so removing it declutters the headings. **Breaking changes** None. This touches card render order and the removal of a decorative badge only — no state, persistence, toggle, or visibility logic changes. ## What Changed - Sorted every card on the Instance Experimental settings page alphabetically by its heading title. - Removed the redundant "Experimental" secondary badge from the card headings (previously on Apps, Cases, and Chat-Style Tasks). - Added tests asserting the cards render in case-insensitive alphabetical order and that no card renders an "Experimental" secondary badge. - No behavior change: toggle handlers, footnotes, managed-key handling, and conditional cards (Conference Room Chat, worktree-scoped run) are untouched and now sort into their alphabetical slots. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → all 3 gates CLEAN. - `npx vitest run ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` → 32/32 tests pass (the suite renders the real component and now covers ordering + badge removal). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` (`tsc -b`) → clean. - Manual: open Instance Settings → Experimental. The cards read A→Z and no card shows an "Experimental" chip. ## Risks Low risk. The change is limited to one page component: card render order and the removal of a decorative badge, plus new tests. No state, persistence, toggle, or visibility logic is modified. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, tool use 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…paperclipai#10926) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The agent Test action builds adapter config from the form. > - The build-config parser kept plain and secret_ref bindings. > - It dropped user_secret_ref bindings on the create path. > - This PR shares one parser that keeps every binding shape. > - The test path now sends the same env binding set that a real run sees. > - The benefit is one fix across every adapter build-config path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The agent Test action dropped a user-scoped env binding in create mode. The same agent config worked in a real run. Related public PRs: paperclipai#10115, paperclipai#9321, paperclipai#9921, paperclipai#8825. **Expected behavior** The Test action should keep user-scoped env bindings and resolve them like a real run. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Set a user-scoped env binding on an agent config form. 2. Run Test in create mode. 3. The probe runs without the variable. **Paperclip version or commit** c09d250 **Deployment mode** Local dev (pnpm dev) **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific (core bug) **Database mode** Embedded PGlite (default — DATABASE_URL unset) **Additional context** This change is not Claude-specific. ## What Changed - Added a shared env binding parser in `@paperclipai/adapter-utils`. - Replaced the eight adapter build-config copies with the shared helper. - Kept `plain`, `secret_ref`, and `user_secret_ref` bindings intact in create mode and edit mode. - Preserved the runtime merge behavior from the earlier env merge change. ## Verification - Author-recorded test run: `packages/adapter-utils/src/env-bindings.test.ts` - Author-recorded test run: `packages/adapters/claude-local/src/ui/build-config.test.ts` - Author-recorded test run: six adapter build-config test files - Author-recorded typecheck: `tsc --noEmit` for adapter-utils and the eight adapter packages - GitHub checks: all required PR checks pass on PR paperclipai#10926. - Greptile review: 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - The change touches adapter config assembly. - A wrong binding shape would change test-time probe input. - Tests cover the binding types and the create-mode path. > 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 GPT-5, code execution and repo inspection. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes or confirmed no documentation update is needed - [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>
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip supports self-hosted and Cloud-managed authenticated deployments > - A Cloud-managed tenant uses the Cloud harness to own the full browser session > - The account menu treated every authenticated deployment as Cloud and called the local sign-out API first > - This pull request uses the existing Cloud health metadata as the mode gate > - Cloud-managed sign-out now starts the harness logout round trip with a top-level navigation > - Self-hosted authenticated sign-out keeps the existing local API flow > - The benefit is a complete Cloud logout without changing self-hosted behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related prior work: Refs paperclipai#10802. **What happened?** The account menu called the app-local sign-out endpoint before it moved an authenticated browser to the Cloud logout route. It also used authenticated deployment mode as the Cloud test. This test included self-hosted authenticated instances. **Expected behavior** A Cloud-managed tenant must navigate the top-level browser directly to `/cloud/logout`. A self-hosted authenticated instance must keep the app-local sign-out flow. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a Cloud-managed tenant. 2. Open the account menu. 3. Select **Sign out**. 4. Observe that the browser returns through the tenant auth route instead of completing the Cloud logout round trip. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `master` after `76f442040c`. **Deployment mode** Paperclip Cloud-managed authenticated deployment. ## What Changed - Read the existing Cloud instance metadata in the account menu. - Navigate directly to `/cloud/logout` for Cloud-managed instances without calling the local sign-out API. - Keep the local sign-out API and cache refresh for self-hosted authenticated instances. - Add regression coverage for both sides of the mode gate. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` ## Risks - Low risk. The change is limited to the account-menu action. - The Cloud branch depends on the existing `health.cloud` metadata that already gates other Cloud UI behavior. - The self-hosted regression test verifies that authenticated mode alone does not select the Cloud route. > 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 based on GPT-5. The runtime provided agentic reasoning, repository tools, shell execution, and test execution. The exact internal model ID and context window are not exposed to the agent. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
…rclipai#10933) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task detail page shows a breadcrumb header with the task status glyph and the task title. > - The breadcrumb did not show the task identifier, so a reader could not name the task without opening extra context. > - Agents and people refer to tasks by identifier, so the identifier belongs next to the title. > - This pull request renders the task identifier in the breadcrumb header, between the status glyph and the title. > - The benefit is faster reference: a reader sees the task key and the title together at the top of the page. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The task detail breadcrumb header. It shows the status glyph and the task title, but not the task identifier. **Subsystem affected** Web UI — the breadcrumb bar on the task detail page (`ui/src/components/BreadcrumbBar.tsx`, `ui/src/context/BreadcrumbContext.tsx`, `ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.tsx`). **Current behavior** The breadcrumb header renders the status glyph and then the task title. The task identifier does not appear in the header. **Proposed behavior** The breadcrumb header renders the task identifier between the status glyph and the title. The identifier uses gray monospace styling from design tokens (`font-mono text-muted-foreground`). **Reason and benefit** A reader can name and reference the task from the header without opening more context. The identifier and the title appear together. **Breaking changes** None. The identifier field is optional. Crumbs without an identifier render as before. ## What Changed - Add an optional `identifier` field to the `Breadcrumb` type and include it in the `breadcrumbsEqual` comparison so an identifier change triggers a fresh render. - Add a `CrumbIdentifier` helper in `BreadcrumbBar` that renders the identifier in gray monospace (`font-mono text-muted-foreground`), placed after the leading status glyph in each crumb variant. - Wire the issue identifier onto the task crumb in `IssueDetail`. - Add unit tests that cover the identifier field in `breadcrumbsEqual` (fresh render on change, no-op on identical value). ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 gates CLEAN (color literals, arbitrary bracket values, raw font-size). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/context/BreadcrumbContext.test.tsx` → 4/4 tests pass. - `pnpm typecheck` → the four changed files typecheck clean. - Manual: open a task detail page. The breadcrumb header shows the status glyph, then the task identifier in gray monospace, then the title. Visual change. Snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated, per `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` → "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". ## Risks Low risk. The change is additive and the identifier field is optional. It touches only the breadcrumb header rendering and the equality check. No data model or API change. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, tool use 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…firmation CTAs (paperclipai#10930) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Chat-style tasks show an agent's plan in a dedicated "Plan" pane, and a plan confirmation lets the user accept or request changes to that plan > - When an agent asked for confirmation but never actually published the plan document (it only wrote the plan in a comment or a question), the Plan pane rendered empty, and the confirmation call-to-action that used to sit pinned at the bottom of the pane had disappeared > - A user asked to confirm a plan they cannot see, with no visible CTA, is stuck — the feature silently fails > - This pull request closes the gap on both sides: it prevents plan confirmations that don't point at a real, latest plan revision, it teaches agents to publish the plan document before confirming, and it restores the sticky confirmation action bar and an explanatory empty state so the pane never goes silently blank > - The benefit is that when a plan is expected, it reliably shows up in the right pane with reachable accept/revise actions ## Linked Issues or Issue Description <!-- No public GitHub issue exists; describing in-PR per the bug template. --> **Bug report** - **What happened:** A task in planning mode could present a plan confirmation while the Plan pane stayed empty (no plan document rendered), and the plan-card confirmation CTAs that were previously pinned to the bottom of the Plan pane no longer appeared. - **Expected behavior:** When a plan is expected, the plan document appears in the Plan pane; when a plan is genuinely missing, the pane explains why rather than showing nothing; and the accept/request-changes CTAs stay visible and reachable while the plan scrolls. - **Steps to reproduce:** Put a task in planning mode with the chat-style task view enabled, have an agent create a plan confirmation without first publishing the `plan` document, and open the Plan tab — the pane is blank and the confirmation actions are missing. - **Deployment mode:** Local dev and self-hosted; UI + server. Related PR (not a duplicate): paperclipai#9609 "Pin pending confirmations by composer" pins confirmations in a different surface (the composer); this PR restores the Plans-pane action bar and the server/agent guarantees behind it. ## What Changed - **Server:** Reject a `request_confirmation` whose target is a plan document unless a plan document exists and the target points at its *latest* revision, so a confirmation can never reference a plan the pane cannot render (`readPlanTarget` is now exported for reuse). - **Agent instructions:** The CEO and default agent instruction bundles now spell out a plan-publish contract — publish the `plan` document, re-`GET` it and capture `latestRevisionId`, then create the confirmation targeting that revision; never present a plan only in a thread comment or via `ask_user_questions`. - **UI — sticky CTAs:** Restore the plan confirmation action bar pinned to the bottom of the Plans tab so accept/revise stay reachable while the plan scrolls. - **UI — diagnostics:** Keep the Plan tab visible whenever an issue is in planning mode (even before a plan document exists) and show an empty state explaining why the pane is empty instead of rendering nothing. - **UI — annotations:** Add a `panelPlacement="inline"` mode so the plan-document annotation panel renders in document flow instead of as a floating side panel when hosted in the narrow task properties pane. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 CLEAN - `pnpm typecheck` → clean (all packages) - UI: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/issue-properties/IssuePlanConfirmationActionBar.test.tsx src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx` → 69 passed - Server: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts` → 60 passed - Manual: with a planning-mode task, the Plan tab stays visible, shows the plan document (or a diagnostic empty state), and the confirmation CTAs stay pinned at the bottom. Visual note: snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated — per `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". The `storybook-visual` label is intentionally not added. ## Risks Low-to-moderate. The server change adds a validation gate on plan-document confirmations: an interaction that targets a stale or nonexistent plan revision is now rejected with a 422 instead of being created. This is the intended guarantee, but any caller that relied on creating such confirmations will now need to publish the plan document first (which the updated agent instructions cover). UI changes are additive to the Plans tab and gated by the existing chat-style-task experimental flag. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, with tool use (file editing, shell, 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Agents can encounter credentials during work. > - Directly creating live secrets or bindings would bypass human governance. > - Proposal records must remain inert and separate from live secret resolution until an authorized human approves them. > - Approval must reuse the existing secret-create and protected agent-config write paths. > - This pull request adds the propose, review, approve, and reject lifecycle. > - The benefit is that agents can safely hand credentials into Paperclip without exposing plaintext or gaining authority to activate them. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Follow-on to paperclipai#9921, which established run-bound agent secret access. **Problem / motivation:** Agents can receive credentials during work. There is no governed way for them to propose a credential or binding without exposing plaintext in work artifacts or immediately creating live access. **Proposed solution:** Store agent-authored proposals outside live secret tables. Encrypt each proposed value and register exact-value redaction when Paperclip receives it. Require an authorized human to approve or reject each proposal. Approval executes through the normal write paths as the human approver. Binding proposals can target only the proposer or its downward reporting chain under the restrictive V1 policy. **Alternatives considered:** We rejected live secrets with a `proposed` status. That design would put untrusted rows in resolver, list, and sync paths. It would also allow uniqueness squatting. We rejected direct agent binding writes because a binding is an agent-config write and must keep the existing human permission gate. **Roadmap alignment:** This change extends the run-bound agent secret-access foundation in paperclipai#9921 with a governed proposal workflow. ## Security Verdict Q0 SecEng verdict: **PASS-with-required-changes**. The review accepted the separate proposal-table design and required the implementation to: - fail closed unless both encryption and exact-value run redaction registration succeed; - scrub ciphertext idempotently on reject, withdraw, and expiry, with audit-visible state; - treat agent justification as hostile input and foreground action, target, provenance, and approver permissions; - snapshot and re-check the target agent plus reports-to chain at approval to prevent org-chart laundering; - make cascade approval atomic and fail closed if either secret creation or binding authorization fails; - deny low-trust, `skill_test`, `task_bridge`, and non-run-bound sources consistently; and - execute approval through the normal human secret/config write paths, including protected-change gates. Those requirements are implemented and covered by focused service, route, and UI tests. Residual V1 risk remains the accepted 14-day encrypted retention window. Proposal-time redaction also cannot clean a value that leaked before the propose call. ## What Changed - Added `company_secret_proposals`, migration `0207`, shared proposal contracts, and a state-machine service for create, approve, reject, withdraw, cascade, expiry, and ciphertext scrubbing. - Added run-bound agent proposal routes and board review routes. The routes derive provenance from authentication and enforce source restrictions, company isolation, chain-of-command checks, approval-as-approver, wake-on-resolution, and dual audit trails. - Added durable per-run exact-value redaction registration so proposal values remain redacted on later read surfaces. - Added the Secrets **Proposals** tab and agent configuration **Proposed access** rows. The UI shows fingerprint and length only. It also frames agent justification as untrusted input, runs permission preflight, supports approve and reject actions, and confirms cascades. - Updated OpenAPI, agent skill guidance, API reference documentation, and focused server and UI regression coverage. - Rebased the branch onto current `master` and renumbered the proposal migration after `0206`. ## QA Acceptance Results Q5 QA verdict: **PASS — 9/9 acceptance criteria met**, with one Minor non-blocking follow-up. - **AC1:** proposed values never echo, never appear in live lists/resolvers, and expose only fingerprint + length to board reviewers. - **AC2:** restrictive `self_and_reports` matrix passes: self/downward allowed; upward/lateral denied. - **AC3:** secret approval uses the normal create path, honors rename overrides, records proposer/approver provenance, and scrubs ciphertext. - **AC4:** approved bindings materialize and resolve through the target agent's runtime list/fetch routes. - **AC5:** pending-secret bindings require cascade; cascade succeeds atomically and permission failures leave nothing applied. - **AC6:** reject, withdraw, dependent rejection, and expiry paths scrub ciphertext and preserve reasons/audit state. - **AC7:** token/source and approver denial matrix passes through live checks plus focused route tests. - **AC8:** proposal lifecycle events and reused `secret.created`/config-write events form the required dual audit trail; origin-issue notification and wake are queued. - **AC9:** both review surfaces render and execute correctly; UI approval materializes the binding. QA also confirmed zero plaintext occurrences for all exercised proposal values in server logs. The single finding is that the company-level `bindingTargetPolicy` toggle is not wired yet. V1 is hardcoded to the restrictive `self_and_reports` policy. The matrix is correct and the follow-up is tracked separately, so QA classified it as non-blocking. ## Verification - Focused server proposal and redaction suite: 83 tests pass. - Focused proposal review UI suite: 54 tests pass. - Embedded-Postgres migration reapply test: 1 test passes with the documented 30-second timeout. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passes, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passes. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes with all gates clean. - Q5 exercised the complete propose, review, approve, bind, and runtime-resolve flow over real HTTP, JWT, and database paths. It verified 9/9 acceptance criteria. ## Risks - Proposal ciphertext is retained encrypted for up to 14 days while pending. Terminal-state and expiry scrub paths reduce but do not remove server-compromise risk during that window. - The V1 target policy is restrictive but not yet company-configurable. A separate follow-up owns that change. - A new migration can require another renumber if another migration lands before maintainers merge this pull request. > 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. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed. The agent used reasoning, repository editing, terminal execution, Paperclip API, and GitHub CLI capabilities. Q3 UI work also records Claude Opus 4.8 assistance in its commit trailers. ## 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 not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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 Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…paperclipai#10934) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents ask humans for decisions through interaction blocks: plan confirmations, structured questions, suggested tasks, and checkbox prompts > - Each agent writes these decision prompts in its own style, so operators can get long or unclear text at the exact moment they must decide > - There is no instance-level control that makes agents use a controlled language for these decision points only > - This pull request adds an experimental setting that tells agents to write all user-interaction content in ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English, with the context the user needs and the effect of each choice > - The benefit is faster, clearer human decisions, with agent thinking and normal responses unchanged ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs paperclipai#10410 (optional `/simplified-english` skill in the skills catalog; this PR adds the instance-level toggle for interactions). **Problem or motivation** Agent-posted user interactions (plan confirmations, structured questions, suggested-task proposals, checkbox prompts) are written in each agent's default style. Operators who want fast, unambiguous decisions have no way to ask agents to use a controlled language for exactly those decision points. **Proposed solution** Add an experimental instance setting, `enableSimplifiedEnglishInteractions` ("Simplified English Interactions"). When it is on, the server sets `simplifiedEnglishInteractions: true` in the heartbeat wake payload. The shared wake-prompt renderer, used by every adapter, then emits a directive: write all user-interaction content in ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English, state what information the user needs to decide, and state what happens for each choice. The directive applies to interaction content only. Thinking, comments, documents, and other responses keep their usual style. **Alternatives considered** Per-agent instructions work today, but someone must maintain them on every agent. An instance-level toggle applies uniformly and turns off in one place. Server-side rewriting of interaction payloads was rejected: post-hoc translation is lossy and cannot add the decision context that only the agent has. **Roadmap alignment** Extends the experimental settings surface with another opt-in agent-behavior refinement, consistent with existing prompt-side flags. ## What Changed - Added `enableSimplifiedEnglishInteractions` to the experimental instance-settings zod schema, mirror type, and feature catalog (default off, tier preference) in `packages/shared`. - Server `instance-settings.ts` normalizes the flag on both read branches; `heartbeat.ts` reads it once and passes `simplifiedEnglishInteractions` into `buildPaperclipWakePayload`. - Shared adapter renderer (`packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts`): added the field to `PaperclipWakePayload`, normalization, and an `- interaction language (experimental): ...` directive emitted in both fresh and resume prompt lanes, so one injection point covers all adapters. - UI: new experimental settings card "Simplified English Interactions" in `ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.tsx`, in alphabetical card order; fixtures updated. - Tests: renderer coverage for flag on/off in both lanes, plus schema/catalog/UI fixture updates. ## Verification - From the repo root: `node_modules/.bin/vitest run packages/adapter-utils` (88/88), `packages/shared` validators (25/25), server instance-settings + heartbeat suites (47/47 and 70/70 consumer tests), `ui` settings tests (32/32). - Typecheck is clean in all four touched packages. - Manual check: turn the flag on in Settings → Experimental, wake an agent, and confirm the wake prompt contains the interaction-language directive; turn it off and confirm the directive is absent. ## Risks - Low risk: the flag defaults to off, and the only behavior change is one extra directive line in the wake prompt when an operator turns it on. - The directive is advisory to the agent; models can still deviate from STE. No data or API shape changes; no migration. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, model ID `claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use via Claude Agent SDK. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issues use `in_review` to request a final decision from an authorized writer > - The server rejected an assignee agent that tried to close its own review, even when the issue had no independent-review rule > - This rejection stopped the default agent workflow and did not represent the configured execution-stage rules > - Paperclip needs an open default and explicit issue-level constraints for teams that require an independent or human verdict > - This pull request removes the unconditional rejection and adds `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only` review policies > - The benefit is a working default path with opt-in, authenticated verdict controls ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs paperclipai#10635, paperclipai#4429, and paperclipai#10671. The related public work covers execution-stage independence, self-approval fallback behavior, and durable review paths. This change is distinct. It controls who can resolve an issue review verdict. It keeps configured execution stages active. ## What Changed - Added a nullable `review_policy` issue column. Null has the same meaning as `anyone`. The migration does not backfill existing issues. - Added shared create, update, response, and compact issue contracts for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Removed the unconditional agent self-approval rejection for `in_review` issues. - Added one reusable verdict-actor check for terminal status changes and pending interaction accept or reject actions. - Used the authenticated principal type for `human_only`. Agent keys and run tokens remain agent principals. - Used the latest transition into `in_review` to identify the requester for `not_creator`. - Added actionable 403 responses that name the policy, the allowed actor, and the next step. - Kept the configured execution-stage transition and signoff behavior. - Added focused contract, helper, status-route, interaction-route, and execution-stage regression tests. - Updated the implementation specification for the new issue field. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 42 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` passed across server, CLI, plugin SDK/examples, plugin wiki, and UI. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - SecurityEngineer review approved the authenticated-principal checks and accepted policy-relaxation tradeoff with no required changes. - Greptile reviewed the latest head at 5/5 with zero inline comments or follow-ups. - The latest-head GitHub rollup passed build, typecheck, server/workspace tests, serialized suites, canary, e2e, and external security checks. ## Risks - The migration adds one nullable text column. It has no default and no backfill. - `not_creator` reads the latest recorded transition into `in_review`. It denies the verdict when it cannot identify the requester. - Agents can change or relax `reviewPolicy` when they have issue write access. This is intentional for this issue-level control. - Null and `anyone` do not add a database query to the verdict path. - Configured execution-stage checks still run after the issue-level policy check. > This work aligns with the completed "Agent Reviews and Approvals" and "Enforced Outcomes" roadmap items. It does not add a new roadmap capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed to the agent. The run used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
…ai#10939) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue reviews use thread confirmations to record explicit verdicts > - The server allowed users to resolve review confirmations but rejected all agent actors > - This one-way rule prevented an eligible agent reviewer from completing a review > - The existing review policy already defines which actor can submit a verdict > - This pull request applies that policy to agent confirmation verdicts on writable issues > - The benefit is a consistent review gate for users and agents with preserved audit attribution ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Builds on: paperclipai#10931 (merged into master before this PR) - Refs paperclipai#8617 ## What Changed - Allow eligible agents to accept or reject pending review confirmations on issues they can write. - Allow a creator agent to withdraw its own pending review confirmation when the review policy permits it. - Reuse the review verdict policy check for users and agents. - Require an explicit, same-run review-confirmation binding so unrelated board-only confirmations stay protected. - Preserve board-only tool action confirmations and existing user attribution. - Add route and service tests for agent accept, reject, withdrawal, human-only denial, and user attribution. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts` (256 passed after rebasing onto master and the atomic binding fix) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - The change expands who can resolve pending review confirmations. The existing issue write checks and review policy limit this access. - Tool action confirmations remain board-only. - The pull request depends on the review policy helper from paperclipai#10931, which is now merged into master. > 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`. The roadmap marks Agent Reviews and Approvals as shipped. This pull request fixes a narrow server behavior gap in that shipped capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-5.6-sol`, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose the context window size. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [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>
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task detail view shows the conversation as chat bubbles. The requester's own messages sit in a solid accent-colored bubble. > - The bubble container sets `text-white`, but the message body renders through `MarkdownBody`. Tailwind prose tokens (`--tw-prose-body`) win over the inherited container color. > - `prose-invert` only lightens the prose text in dark mode. In light mode the prose body stayed its default dark color, so the text read as near-black on the blue bubble and was hard to read. > - This pull request maps the human bubble's prose tokens to the inherited text color in both themes. > - The benefit is that the requester's chat text is readable white-on-blue in light mode, and dark mode stays exactly as it was. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description <!-- No public GitHub issue exists; described in-PR per the bug report template. --> **What happened?** In light mode, the text inside the user's own chat bubbles in the task detail view rendered as dark (near-black) on the solid blue accent background. This made the requester's messages hard to read. **Expected behavior** The text inside the user's accent-colored chat bubbles should be white in light mode, matching the bubble's `text-white` intent. Dark mode already rendered correctly and should not change. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a chat-style task detail view in light mode. 2. Post a message as the requester (human) so it renders in the solid blue accent bubble. 3. Observe the body text renders dark on blue instead of white. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduces on `master` (branched from `814cb3367`). **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific (core UI bug). ## What Changed - Add the existing `paperclip-markdown-on-accent` class to the human-branch `MarkdownBody` in `TaskChatBubble.tsx`. This class (already used by `IssueChatThread` for the same accent bubble) maps prose body/heading tokens to `currentColor`, so the text follows the bubble's `text-white` in both themes. - Apply the same class to the human-branch `MarkdownBody` in `TaskChatDescriptionBubble.tsx` (the description-as-first-bubble surface) for consistency. - Add unit tests covering that the human accent bubble carries the on-accent class and the agent/neutral bubbles do not. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 CLEAN. - `pnpm --filter ./ui vitest run src/components/task-chat/TaskChatBubble.test.tsx` → 9/9 passing. - Manual: in light mode, the requester's chat bubble text renders white on blue; agent/neutral bubbles unchanged; dark mode unchanged. This is a visual change. Snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated, per `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` → "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". ## Risks Low risk. The change is scoped to the human-branch `MarkdownBody` className on two chat-bubble components and only remaps prose color tokens to the inherited text color. Agent and neutral bubbles are untouched, and dark mode behavior is unchanged. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, ~200K context window, extended thinking mode, with tool use / code 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 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…very sweeps (paperclipai#10969) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The server runs a recovery sweep every 30 seconds. The sweep makes sure assigned issues do not stall. > - The sweep reads the latest heartbeat run for each candidate issue. It filters `heartbeat_runs` on `context_snapshot ->> 'issueId'`. No index covers this expression. > - Each lookup scans ~26k rows and detoasts each row's JSONB context (~645 ms per query, measured with EXPLAIN ANALYZE). With ~460 candidate issues, one sweep schedules ~500 seconds of database work every 30 seconds. > - The database saturates. Users see the whole server as slow. > - This pull request adds expression indexes so these lookups become index scans. > - The benefit is that the recovery sweep drops from ~500 seconds of database work per tick to milliseconds, and the server becomes responsive again. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The server became slow for all users. `pg_stat_activity` sampling showed the same two recovery-sweep queries active continuously (15/15 samples). Each `getLatestIssueRun` call filtered `heartbeat_runs` on the unindexed expression `context_snapshot ->> 'issueId'`, scanned ~26k rows, and detoasted a 2.1 GB TOAST region. `heartbeat_runs` accumulated 10.8 billion sequential tuples read. `hasActiveExecutionPath` also scanned `agent_wakeup_requests` (1.8M rows) on the unindexed expression `payload ->> 'issueId'`. **Expected behavior** Per-issue run lookups in the recovery sweep complete in milliseconds. The sweep finishes well inside its 30-second interval. Background maintenance does not degrade interactive latency. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a board with several hundred issues in `todo` / `in_progress` / `in_review` and a large `heartbeat_runs` table with big `context_snapshot` payloads. 2. Let the heartbeat scheduler run its 30-second recovery sweep. 3. Observe `pg_stat_activity`: the per-issue `heartbeat_runs` lookups run continuously; `EXPLAIN ANALYZE` shows a filter on `context_snapshot ->> 'issueId'` removing tens of thousands of rows per call. **Paperclip version or commit** master (814cb33) ## What Changed - Add migration `0209_heartbeat_context_snapshot_indexes.sql` with three expression indexes: - `heartbeat_runs (company_id, (context_snapshot ->> 'issueId'), created_at DESC)` - `heartbeat_runs (company_id, (context_snapshot ->> 'taskId'), created_at DESC)` - `agent_wakeup_requests (company_id, (payload ->> 'issueId'))` — with a `large-create-index-not-concurrently` safety pragma and justification, following the migration 0206 precedent. - Mirror the three indexes in the drizzle schema files (`heartbeat_runs.ts`, `agent_wakeup_requests.ts`). - Add `heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts`. The test boots a fresh embedded Postgres, applies the full migration chain, asserts the indexes exist, and asserts with `EXPLAIN` that the planner selects them for the exact hot query shapes. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec tsx src/check-migration-numbering.ts` passes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec tsx src/check-migration-safety.ts` passes. - `npx vitest run src/heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts` passes (fresh embedded Postgres, full chain 0000→0209, planner uses all three indexes). - `npx vitest run src/check-migration-safety.test.ts` passes (25/25). - `tsc --noEmit` clean for `packages/db`. ## Risks - The index builds run inside the transactional migration (no `CONCURRENTLY`). The `heartbeat_runs` build must read its 2.1 GB TOAST once; expect the migration step to add roughly 1–3 minutes to one deploy while writes to the two tables wait. This is a one-time cost at startup, before the server accepts traffic. - Three new indexes add small write overhead to two hot-write tables. The read savings are several orders of magnitude larger. - No query or API behavior changes; the planner simply gains a better access path. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic), extended thinking, with tool use (shell, Postgres EXPLAIN/ANALYZE against the live instance for measurement, vitest for verification). ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
… chat notice timestamps (paperclipai#10984) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The task chat thread renders issue comments, system notices, and run transcripts > - The server routes comment payloads through the run-secret redaction walker before it sends them > - The walker rebuilds each object with `Object.entries`, and this collapses `Date` instances to `{}` > - The chat renderer then calls `.toISOString()` on an invalid date and throws, and the thread falls back to the error banner > - This pull request keeps `Date` instances intact in redacted responses and makes the renderer safe against bad timestamps > - The benefit is that task threads with system notices render correctly again ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** Task threads that contain a system notice showed the banner "Chat renderer hit an internal state error." in place of the conversation. This occurred on many tasks. **Expected behavior** The thread renders all comments and system notices with correct timestamps. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task that has at least one system notice comment (for example a "Workspace ready" notice). 2. `GET /api/issues/{id}/comments` returns `createdAt: {}` for every comment because the secret-redaction walker collapses `Date` objects. 3. The system-notice row calls `new Date({}).toISOString()`. This throws `RangeError: Invalid time value` and trips the thread error boundary. **Version / deployment** Regression from paperclipai#9934 (`e43f187ca`). It applies to all deployments that include that commit. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/run-secret-redaction.ts`: `redactRegisteredSecretValues` now returns `Date` instances as-is. Dates hold no redactable text, and the `Object.entries` rebuild turned them into `{}`. - `ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.tsx`: the system-notice row formats its timestamp with a new `toValidIsoString` helper. A value that does not parse as a date now degrades to "no timestamp" instead of a render crash. - Regression tests at three layers: - Walker unit tests: `Date` values survive with and without registered secret values. - Route test: `GET /issues/:id/comments` serializes `createdAt` / `updatedAt` as ISO strings. - Render test: a system notice with a malformed `createdAt` renders without the error boundary. ## Verification - `npx vitest run --root server src/__tests__/run-secret-redaction.test.ts` — 5 passed. - `npx vitest run --root server src/__tests__/issue-comment-redaction.test.ts` — 4 passed (embedded Postgres route test). - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts` — 121 passed. - Each new test was run against the unfixed code and failed there, which confirms it guards the regression. - A local sweep rendered 47 real issue threads through `IssueChatThread`: 7 tripped the boundary before the fix, 0 after. ## Risks - Low risk. The server change only preserves `Date` objects that the walker destroyed before. String redaction behavior does not change, and the registry-key stripping does not change. - The UI change only affects the timestamp of system-notice rows and omits it when the value is invalid. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), Anthropic. Agentic coding session with tool use (file edits, shell, Vitest). No extended-context or special reasoning mode. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
…and productivity sweeps (paperclipai#10992) <!-- ASD-STE100 --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server keeps fleet health with periodic sweeps and shows a dashboard with run activity > - The Paperclip instance became slow again after the first round of recovery-sweep indexes landed > - Live profiling found four steady-state hot paths that read much more data than they use > - This pull request bounds the dashboard recursion, adds the missing taskKey index, and narrows two wide reads > - The benefit is a large drop in constant database load and a responsive server ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Describe the bug** The server becomes slow while agents work. Live query sampling shows four hot paths: 1. The dashboard run-activity recursive CTE reads every run a company ever had on each call. One call takes 2.85 seconds. The UI calls it after almost every fleet event through the dashboard and sidebar-badges routes. 2. The productivity-review sweep runs each 30 seconds. Its run-scope filter is `issueId OR taskId OR taskKey` on the run context JSONB. No index exists for `taskKey`. The planner must detoast every run snapshot for the agent. One query takes 444 ms and the sweep makes one for each of ~152 candidate issues. 3. The attention failed-run section selects the full `context_snapshot` for every run newer than the oldest exhausted run. That fetch moves 29 MB for each feed build. 4. The retention sweep pages the attention feed with a cursor. Each page makes a full feed rebuild. **Expected behavior** Periodic sweeps and dashboard queries read only the data they use, and use indexes. **Actual behavior** The database stays saturated. Users see a slow server. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/dashboard.ts`: bound both arms of the `recovered_runs` recursive CTE to the chart window. A retry is always newer than the run it retries, so the bound cannot change visible chart data. Live time went from 2,852 ms to 54 ms. - `packages/db/src/migrations/0210_heartbeat_context_taskkey_index.sql`: add the `taskKey` expression index that completes the issueId/taskId/taskKey trio. With all three, the planner uses a BitmapOr. Live time for the productivity run-scope query went from 444 ms to 1.9 ms. - `packages/db/src/schema/heartbeat_runs.ts`: mirror the new index in the Drizzle schema. - `server/src/services/productivity-review.ts`: select only the seven run fields the evidence code reads. Before, the query pulled full rows with `result_json` (up to 43 kB per row, 100 rows per issue). - `server/src/services/attention.ts`: project `issueId`/`taskId` text fields instead of the full `context_snapshot` in the failed-run newer-runs query (29 MB per feed build before). - `server/src/index.ts`: the retention sweep now builds the attention feed once per company with `all: true` instead of one full rebuild per cursor page. - `packages/db/src/heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts`: cover the new index and re-run migration 0210 statements to prove idempotency. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` (includes migration numbering and safety checks) — pass. - `npx tsc --noEmit` in `server/` — pass. - `npx vitest run packages/db/src/heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts` — pass (embedded Postgres, full migration chain, planner assertions, idempotent re-run of 0209 and 0210). - `npx vitest run` on attention, dashboard, productivity-review, decision-retention, issue-blocker-attention, and issue-review-attention test files — 72/72 pass. - Live EXPLAIN ANALYZE before/after numbers are in the What Changed list. ## Risks - Migration 0210 builds one btree index without CONCURRENTLY inside the transactional migration runner. The table is not in the large-table bucket. The 0209 twin built in seconds on a 100k-row live table. - The CTE bound excludes retry ancestors that are older than the chart window. Those rows are not visible to the chart query, so chart output does not change. - The attention projection changes JSONB scalar handling in one edge case: a non-string `issueId`/`taskId` value now casts to text instead of reading as absent. These keys are always strings in practice. - The retention sweep now holds one full feed in memory per company. The cursor loop already accumulated all pages into one array, so peak memory is unchanged. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic, Mythos-class tier, extended thinking + tool use) via Paperclip agent runtime. - [x] I searched existing PRs and issues and this change is not a duplicate. Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip can run as a self-hosted app or as a Cloud-managed tenant. > - These modes need different sign-out sequences because Cloud owns three sessions. > - Several visible controls implemented sign-out separately and could choose different paths. > - This pull request adds one Cloud-aware sign-out action and moves every visible control to it. > - The benefit is one safe sign-out path in Cloud and unchanged local sign-out in self-hosted deployments. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs paperclipai#2073. That older PR adds a separate company-settings sign-out surface. This change centralizes the existing account, company, and instance-settings surfaces and preserves the self-hosted behavior described there. **What happened?** Visible sign-out controls used separate implementations. A Cloud-managed control could call the app-local sign-out endpoint and open the local auth page. That path did not enter the Cloud-owned logout sequence for the tenant, Cloud, and identity sessions. **Expected behavior** Every visible sign-out control must use one action. Cloud-managed instances must navigate the top-level window to the same-origin `/cloud/logout` route without a local sign-out call first. Authenticated self-hosted instances must keep the local sign-out API and cache invalidation behavior. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a Cloud-managed tenant. 2. Use the account menu, company menu, or instance-settings sign-out control. 3. Observe that independently implemented controls can enter different sign-out paths. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem reproduces at `656ecfa585b31938e2685ffab3db22e794474803`. **Deployment mode** Cloud-managed tenant built from source. The regression tests also cover authenticated self-hosted mode. ## What Changed - Added `useSignOut` as the shared Cloud-aware sign-out action. - Navigated Cloud-managed sessions to `/cloud/logout` exactly once without calling local auth first. - Preserved local API sign-out and cache invalidation for authenticated self-hosted sessions. - Migrated the account menu, company menu, and instance general settings to the shared action. - Added focused tests for mode selection, menu closure, pending state, failure state, and settings behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/hooks/useSignOut.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceGeneralSettings.test.tsx` — 26 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` — passed. ## Risks - Low risk. The change centralizes existing behavior and adds no schema, API, telemetry, or style-token changes. - Cloud mode depends on the existing health decision. Tests pin both mode branches. - The change does not alter Fetch Metadata, CSRF, cookie, prefetch, or return-URL protections owned by the Cloud logout route. > 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. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. The agent used high-reasoning mode, shell tools, and API tools. ## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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>
Agent operating instructions define memory only in terms of $AGENT_HOME ($AGENT_HOME/MEMORY.md, life/, memory/YYYY-MM-DD.md). If that variable names a different agent's home, an agent that follows its instructions writes memory into that other agent's directory. Two agents then collide on one memory/YYYY-MM-DD.md, and where the other agent is read-only oversight, the audited agent receives a writable path inside the auditor's home. The heartbeat already resolves the correct per-agent home and publishes it on context.paperclipWorkspace.agentHome, and the shared adapter-utils helper maps it to AGENT_HOME. The hermes adapter never read that value, so the only AGENT_HOME a hermes child ever saw was the one inherited from the server process environment. On a host carrying a stale `export AGENT_HOME=...` in a shell rc file, that inherited value is one fixed foreign agent path for every agent on every run. Every other local adapter already wires the resolved home; hermes was the only one that did not. - resolveAgentHomeEnv(): the run-resolved home wins over anything inherited. - agentHomeBelongsToAgent(): an agent home is addressed by agent id, so a home owned by this agent ends with that id. Accepts both separators, ignores trailing slashes, and treats an empty input as unowned. - The ownership check runs on the resolved value as well as the inherited one, so no single trusted caller can bypass the invariant the helper exists for. - A candidate that fails the check is deleted from the child environment rather than passed through. An absent AGENT_HOME is a loud, recoverable failure; a confidently wrong one silently corrupts another agent's memory. - Every override or drop emits an operator warning, so a leak is visible in the run log instead of silent. Tests assert on the environment actually handed to the spawned child, read back out of the runChildProcess mock, across three distinct agents. Disabling the resolved-value ownership check fails two of them, so the guard is load-bearing.
…/e2e checks, RBR-1028)
Owner
Author
|
Superseded — replaced by a clean rebase-free PR (hand-applied diff on current fork/master, no conflicts). See follow-up PR. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
19 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Retarget of upstream PR paperclipai#11002 onto our fork's master (paperclipai/paperclip is upstream; we do not have push/merge rights there — verified:
gh api repos/paperclipai/paperclip -q .permissions-> push:false). Same verified 2-file diff (packages/adapters/hermes/src/server/execute.ts,execute.agent-home.test.ts), previously green on upstream (Greptile 5/5, Contributor trust, Socket, Superagent, Snyk all pass). Closes RBR-1028/RBR-1029 (land RBR-943 fix onto a real CI-tracked master we control).