| 文件 | 最后提交记录 | 最后更新时间 |
|---|---|---|
fix(issues): keep agent mentions as context and defer personal app authorization (#14577) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Each task has one assignee. Explicit assignment and review requests select who should act. > - An agent mention started another agent on a task it did not own. Native attachment staging then rejected that run. > - Allowing that run through startup could also let two agents work on the same task. > - Mentions should identify relevant context. They should not start work or forward comments to other tasks. > - A personal app installed on a shared agent must also wait until tool use to resolve the current user's grant. > - This pull request removes mention dispatch and keeps missing personal app credentials from blocking startup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native agent mentioned on another agent's task failed with `paperclip_runner_attachment_staging_not_authorized`. The source task could already be complete. A nearby optional-app warning was a separate problem: personal app tools were excluded when their shared health state required attention. **Expected behavior** An agent mention is context only. It does not wake the agent, take ownership, or copy a comment onto another task. Normal feedback still reaches the assignee. Assignment and explicit review requests still dispatch work. An unavailable personal app does not block startup or produce a startup warning. Tool use requests the current user's authorization and never uses another user's grant. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign a task to agent A. Post a comment that mentions agent B, including a comment that closes A's task or references B's child task. 2. Confirm the comment retains its agent link and B receives no run or deferred wake. A can still receive normal feedback. 3. Install an active personal MCP connection on B. Give only Alice a grant and leave shared health at `error`. 4. Explicitly assign work to B for another user. Confirm it can finish without using the app. 5. Ask B to use the app. Confirm its tool call shows an inline connection request for the current user. Related work: Refs #11144. This change uses the existing execution-time personal grant resolution. ## What Changed - Remove mention dispatch from standalone comments and issue updates. Remove implicit forwarding of parent comments to a mentioned worker's child task. - Ignore new requests with the legacy mention wake reason before creating a run or deferred request. Preserve already accepted queue entries, which can combine assignments and feedback with a later mention. - Remove the native mention admission, staging, and finalization exceptions from this PR. Native task ownership checks remain intact. - Keep active, installed personal app tools available despite shared health errors. Remove optional-app startup warnings. Tool execution retains the current user's grant and policy checks. - Update agent instructions and product/API docs. Refresh generated capability source anchors. ## Verification - Red: comment-route regressions reproduced extra agent wakes and child comment forwarding. A separate regression proved that cancelling by the last coalesced reason could drop an accepted assignment. - Green: the targeted route, wake queue, heartbeat, workspace, responsible-user, MCP discovery, and HTTP gateway suites passed. The final queue and heartbeat rerun passed 104 tests, the restored queue adapter passed 56, and both comment-route suites passed 135. These include accepted assignment preservation, rejection of new mention requests, and normal assignee feedback. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. The full local `pnpm test:run` attempt was interrupted for review/CI fixes, so it is not claimed as a completed local pass. It exposed a cleanup timing race in the concurrent-mention assertion, now fixed and verified across 10 repetitions. CI also exposed an obsolete test waiting for the removed mention lookup; it was reproduced and fixed, then both comment suites passed. Final full-suite verification is through CI. - Final head `bd9ea4cb05a8f081c54e017760a8999f9ea6ef44`: 54 checks passed, 2 Storybook checks intentionally skipped; no pending or failing checks. Full CI includes general and serialized suites, all 8 browser shards, runner verification, typecheck, build, and canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit, with no unresolved findings. - One unchanged Cursor adapter test hit its 10-second CI timeout. All 5 tests in that file passed locally; one retry of its CI shard passed all 674 tests (3 skipped). The aggregate verification gate then passed. No code or timeout was changed for that retry. - Live browser check: inserted a structured mention with the picker on a human-owned task. The saved link remained visible. Database checks found zero new runs and zero wake requests. - Live Codex runner check: explicitly assigned that task with the unavailable personal app attached. The run succeeded and committed completion without using the app or creating a connection card. - Live browser follow-up: asked the assignee to call PostHog and mentioned another enabled agent as context. Only the assignee ran. It succeeded and displayed the existing inline connection card. Only Alice's grant existed; the run belonged to a different user. - The HTTP regression covers tool discovery with no provider calls or connection cards, first use returning the current user's authorization request, and successful retry after that user's grant exists. - App checks use an isolated local fixture and a fake MCP provider. They do not use production app credentials. ## Risks - Intentional behavior change: workflows that used mentions to wake agents must use assignment, a bounded child task, or an explicit review request. - Already accepted queue entries retain their prior rules. An old entry can combine assignment or feedback with a later mention; its last reason cannot safely identify mention-only work. New mention requests create no run or deferred wake. - Personal apps with a shared health error remain discoverable. Actual tool use still requires the responsible user's grant and existing policy gates. - No database migration or public API schema change. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. - Live native-run verification used `gpt-6-astra` through the Codex provider. ## 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> | 17 天前 | |
fix(costs): preserve usage attribution and explain unavailable run costs (#15948) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The cost ledger records usage and controls agent budgets. > - Some runs lose the selected model or API billing category before their usage reaches the ledger. > - The dashboard reports missing costs but does not identify the affected runs or the available actions. > - This pull request preserves usage attribution and adds a compact view of cost gaps grouped by agent. > - Operators can inspect runs, open agent settings, and record saved costs without starting new agent work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15634, #11938, #15879. This follows the merged subscription reporting in #15634. The older proposal in #11938 addresses part of ACP model attribution. This change also rejects conflicting models across a turn, fixes credential-backed billing capture, and explains cost gaps in the existing dashboard. The Pi receipt recovery work in #15879 covers a separate adapter recovery path. This PR preserves unresolved receipts and does not recover provider usage or reprice past entries. **What happened?** ACP results use the requested model even when the runtime selects a model. Native and OpenCode API runs can report unknown billing despite a matching API credential. The dashboard shows notices without links to the affected runs. These gaps make API and subscription totals harder to interpret. **Expected behavior** Record the model selected by the runtime. Identify API billing only from a matching credential. Keep costs unresolved when reliable usage or pricing is absent. Show the affected agents and runs. Offer an accounting retry only when saved evidence is ready. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run an ACP agent with its model left unset, or use a matching API credential with a native or OpenCode agent. 2. Inspect the recorded model and billing category for the run. 3. Open Costs Overview for a period with unpriced usage or terminal runs awaiting receipts. 4. Inspect the notice and try to find the affected run or the relevant agent settings. **Paperclip version or commit** Current master at `657e71584a0`. The patch is rebased on that commit. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server and local development. The cost detail tests use a disposable PostgreSQL database. ## What Changed - Preserve the runtime-selected ACP model in checkpoints and final results. Conflicting models across one turn remain unpriced. - Share credential-backed API billing checks across native and OpenCode results. Keep unknown billing when the provider and credential do not match. - Add company-scoped cost detail and accounting retry endpoints. Board viewers can read details but cannot retry. Agents and foreign companies are denied. - Limit each detail category to 25 entries. Use one consistent database snapshot and sparse indexes matching the filters and sort order. Add the unknown-billing count to the existing summary query. - Replace the notice with an expandable count line. Group entries alphabetically by agent. Show the saved blob icon, link each name to configuration, and put run and retry links beside the date. - Preserve estimate and unavailable-price labels on Providers and Billers; keep retry confirmation after the resolved notice disappears. - Fetch details only while expanded. Retain the last loaded details after a refresh error. Retry saved accounting only; do not rerun the agent. - Add capture, database, authorization, UI, and Storybook coverage. Update the implementation contract and cost reporting guide. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after rebase. - `pnpm build` and `pnpm build-storybook` passed after rebase. - `pnpm check:token-gates` and `git diff --check` passed. - 1,086 focused tests passed across 17 files. These cover ACP, native and OpenCode capture, PostgreSQL reports, route authorization, OpenAPI, Costs UI, and existing accounting regressions. - Desktop and mobile browser checks passed during UI review. They cover lazy expansion, alphabetical groups, loaded blob icons, configuration and run links, keyboard retry, and layout overflow. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted with command-scoped `init.defaultBranch=master` for Git fixtures. It was stopped after a native session recovery failure reproduced on unchanged base `657e71584a0` (`archives a damaged prior epoch before completing guarded same-task replacement with real runnerd`). An MCP upload case failed in the broad run but passed in isolation on both the base and PR branch. These local limitations do not affect the 1,086 passing focused tests. - Current-head CI is green, including all unit test lanes, serialized server suites, runner checks, typecheck, build, policy, and eight browser shards. Apex re-review is 5/5 on `56de60effdb`; all four original findings are addressed and every review thread is resolved. - PostgreSQL applies migration `0333` in the integration fixtures. EXPLAIN ANALYZE on the production detail statements uses the new sparse indexes behind 5,000 healthy records in each table. - Ten provider/biller card cases cover missing and estimated prices; the retry test covers row removal and notice unmount. A live Storybook browser check verifies the confirmation and updated count. - Run `pnpm storybook`. Open **Costs / Subscriptions / Cost Data Quality Details** to inspect the production page with representative fixtures. ## Risks - Model and billing metadata change for future runs. Estimates still require complete usage and a supported price. No past cost amount is rewritten. - A missing final receipt remains unresolved for budget checks. The display changes after fifteen minutes; that time limit never authorizes settlement. - Accounting retry is a write action. It retains the existing company checks, receipt fences, idempotency, and audit logging. - Detail reads are bounded and run only after expansion. They poll every 30 seconds while open. No provider probe or new summary query is added. - Migration `0333` adds two partial indexes; it changes no stored cost amounts or table columns. Index creation scans the existing tables and may briefly block writes during deployment. No lockfile or workflow change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code editing, browser checks, and test execution. The exact serving model ID, reasoning setting, and context window were not exposed to this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have 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: Codex <noreply@openai.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> | 5 天前 | |
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> | 5 个月前 | |
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> | 5 个月前 | |
fix: restore docs deleted in v0.2.3 release, add Paperclip branding - Restored docs/ directory that was accidentally deleted by `git add -A` in the v0.2.3 release script - Replaced generic "P" favicon with actual paperclip icon using brand primary color (#2563EB) - Added light/dark logo SVGs for Mintlify navbar (paperclip icon + wordmark) - Updated docs.json with logo configuration for dark/light mode - Fixed release.sh to stage only release-related files instead of `git add -A` to prevent sweeping unrelated changes into release commits Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> | 7 个月前 | |
feat(mcp) [split 1/8]: add fixture demo servers (#9556) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 1/8 and focuses on fixture and demo MCP servers > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: Developers need deterministic local MCP fixtures and visible demo servers without pulling in the governed production runtime. - Proposed solution: Adds the Google Sheets and KV demo MCP packages, fixture catalog/servers, smoke harness, guide, and the root smoke/typecheck registration hunks. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `master`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: QA for fixture and smoke coverage; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds the Google Sheets and KV demo MCP packages, fixture catalog/servers, smoke harness, guide, and the root smoke/typecheck registration hunks. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/google-sheets-mcp-server test` — 27 tests passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/kv-demo-mcp-server test` — 12 tests passed ## Risks - The new packages add dependencies that are intentionally not committed to `pnpm-lock.yaml`, per repository policy. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge. > 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-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools 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] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [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 - [ ] 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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> | 3 个月前 | |
Preserve repository dependencies when importing GitHub skills (#15731) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its Skills library imports reusable instructions from GitHub. > - Some skills depend on shared files and sibling skills outside their folders. > - Directory-only imports lose those dependencies. > - This pull request keeps repository files together and lets users select which skills appear in the library. > - Agents receive the original files and paths through the existing skill delivery system. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #14713. Related: #13656. **Current behavior** GitHub imports copy independent skill directories. Shared scripts, policies, helper skills, and credit files can be omitted. One shared-file error can block every skill. **Proposed behavior** New imports keep repository files together at the scanned commit. Show all skills with their folders and select every skill by default. Collapse individual package files. Omit unsupported or oversized files with a warning. Import available content without repair choices or an extra confirmation. Keep warnings on the saved source. **Reason and benefit** Skills can read their shared repository files after Paperclip delivers them to an agent. Original instructions stay unchanged. Users can inspect included files and understand omissions before and after import. ## What Changed - Store immutable company-scoped repository snapshots and associate them with skill versions. Regenerate the migration after merging master. - Preserve original bytes, binary encoding, and executable modes. Shared-file changes version each usable selected skill. Pinned versions retain their original files. - Deliver a discovery wrapper with the original tree under `.paperclip-repository/`. Preserve invocation policy when present. Fork and create-from-existing retain repository files. - Keep repository files together for new UI imports. Show every skill, select all by default, and collapse package files. Remove the packaging-mode menu. Keep the mobile import footer visible. - Warn about symlinks, submodules, oversized files, missing references, and invalid optional manifests. A malformed skill remains selected with a Needs setup warning. Usable skills still publish, and its original file remains repository support content. Source warnings persist through refresh. Unsafe execution and secret-disclosure findings omit the affected files before snapshot publication. - Expose saved repository files in the installed skill viewer, including binary encoding and executable flags. Reads use the immutable company-scoped snapshot; relative instruction links resolve from their original repository directory. - Audit delivered inventories and derive trust from all repository files. Accept evaluation prose while retaining dynamic-execution findings. Read blobs in one bounded Git batch and check budgets before reading support files. Imports never execute setup commands. - Add scanner, database, delivery, UI, and browser regressions. Update Storybooks, screenshots, and documentation. ## Verification - 69 focused scanner, Git snapshot, delivery, and PostgreSQL lifecycle tests passed. They cover partial imports, warning persistence, missing references, binary files, executable modes, copies, pinned versions, cancellation, company isolation, and batched Git reads. - 110 import, skill-detail, selection-tree, saved-file link, and Markdown renderer tests passed. A file-switch regression failed before the resolver fix and passed afterward. Browser walkthroughs cover the all-selected open tree, repository preview, non-blocking warnings, missing references, setup problems, warning persistence, and mobile layout. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed. Runner E2E TypeScript checks and design-token gates passed. The full serial local suite was attempted and stopped after over an hour. The existing 40,000-file Git streaming stress test failed after 303 seconds on macOS; the broad local suite is not counted as passed. All 55 applicable PR checks passed on the final commit, including the full sharded CI suite. Two optional Storybook workflows were skipped; the five local Storybook walkthroughs passed. - On October 12, live campaigns imported the private Poteto repository through the production GitHub Sources UI, selected architect and bro, and invoked them with native Codex on local and Daytona. The source connection was disabled before invocation. Independent filesystem inspections matched every supported Git blob, size, and executable mode. Both tasks completed and cleanup passed. Campaigns: `local-2026-10-12T15-07-39-504Z` (both environments), `local-2026-10-12T16-08-39-682Z` (local), and `local-2026-10-12T16-03-33-938Z` (Daytona). Each of the two selected skills received all 234 supported repository files. Later changes only affect the installed-file viewer and documentation. This qualifies skill delivery and instruction reads, not every Poteto workflow or adapter. - A manual source-checkout test drive imported a synthetic private GitHub repository with a symlink, an oversized file, a missing reference, and malformed skill metadata. Available skills published with their shared checklist. The walkthrough found duplicate warning text after import; the final UI fix removes that duplicate. The file viewer exposes saved repository dependencies and resolves authored relative links without changing the instructions. A follow-up live refresh omitted unsafe helper files with warnings, preserved every safe file byte, and survived a server restart. Screenshots below use the production UI with Storybook fixtures. They do not replace the live GitHub and runtime checks. <details> <summary>All skills visible and selected by default</summary>  </details> <details> <summary>Import stays available with warnings</summary>  </details> <details> <summary>Repository file inspector</summary>  </details> <details> <summary>Mobile import</summary>  </details> ## Risks - Each selected skill carries a repository copy in the runtime. The database stores each snapshot once. Runtime transfer and storage increase with the number of assigned skills. - Runtime budgets remain: 9,990 repository entries, 1 MiB per file, and 61 MiB total. File omissions are recorded as warnings. Source-access or download failures retain installed versions. - Import success does not prove that every skill can run. Environment dependencies, credentials, delegation tools, and schedules still need configuration. Imported setup scripts are not executed. - Live runtime coverage is native Codex on local and Daytona. Other adapters use the shared delivery path but were not exercised in these campaigns. The roadmap marks Skills Manager as shipped. This extends the existing importer. Related pull requests were checked. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, automated tests, and browser tools. The exact deployment identifier and context-window size were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have 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 - [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 | 4 天前 | |
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> | 5 个月前 | |
fix: restore docs deleted in v0.2.3 release, add Paperclip branding - Restored docs/ directory that was accidentally deleted by `git add -A` in the v0.2.3 release script - Replaced generic "P" favicon with actual paperclip icon using brand primary color (#2563EB) - Added light/dark logo SVGs for Mintlify navbar (paperclip icon + wordmark) - Updated docs.json with logo configuration for dark/light mode - Fixed release.sh to stage only release-related files instead of `git add -A` to prevent sweeping unrelated changes into release commits Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> | 7 个月前 |
| 文件 | 最后提交记录 | 最后更新时间 |
|---|---|---|
| 17 天前 | ||
| 5 天前 | ||
| 5 个月前 | ||
| 5 个月前 | ||
| 7 个月前 | ||
| 3 个月前 | ||
| 4 天前 | ||
| 5 个月前 | ||
| 7 个月前 |