paperclip/skills · papercl/paperclip

GGitHubfix(tasks): stop repeated reminders for historical questions (#15392)

文件	最后提交记录	最后更新时间
agentmail	feat(connections): add AgentMail inboxes and email tasks (#13256) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Connections give agents controlled access to external services. > - Experimental channels already map conversations to tasks and durable work queues. > - Email needs inbox ownership, recipient envelopes, delivery records, and explicit sends. > - This pull request adds AgentMail to that infrastructure and keeps the provider key in the server vault. > - Agents can receive and send email from local or sandbox execution while the board follows each conversation in its task. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Problem or motivation Agents need dedicated email addresses. Incoming email should become assigned work. Internal task comments and progress must never become outgoing email by accident. Proposed solution Add experimental AgentMail connections, an inbox assignment wizard, durable email intake and publication, task email cards, and authenticated API, CLI, and native runtime actions. Agents use Paperclip credentials to request sends. Paperclip owns the provider key and enforces access and task authority. Alternatives considered A general mailbox MCP connector does not provide durable task binding or publication boundaries. A separate mailbox application duplicates task collaboration. The board instead directs the agent through the normal task conversation. Roadmap alignment This extends the existing experimental connections and task infrastructure. Product scope and interaction design were reviewed with the maintainer. Related connection authority work: #11831 and #11818. The duplicate search found no competing task-based AgentMail integration. ## What Changed - Add AgentMail catalog data, shared contracts, company-scoped email records, and an additive migration. - Add vaulted setup, inbox assignment, access grants, trust guidance, and provider-side allowlist guidance. - Support WebSocket and signed-webhook intake through a shared durable pipeline, deduplication, catch-up, and task wakeups. - Queue explicit new conversations and replies with immutable send intents, idempotency, delivery state, and uncertain-send resolution. - Show inbound and outbound email cards in normal task conversations. Keep internal messages internal. - Add task-scoped CLI actions and the sandbox callback routes required for Daytona execution. - Provide a dedicated AgentMail skill automatically only to agents with active authorized inbox assignments. Keep email instructions out of the universal Paperclip skill. - Advertise connector-owned `agentmail_inboxes`, `agentmail_read_thread`, `agentmail_send`, and `agentmail_delivery` tools only in eligible native sessions. Recheck live authority on execution. - Isolate Codex CLI connector skills by agent and skill revision. Deliver the assigned skill in the run prompt for adapters that use shared skill directories, including resumed turns. Keep automatic skills out of manual persistent sync. Show them as read-only and document the pattern in the connector playbook. - Fix AgentMail health checks that entered local-stdio validation and optional missing Codex credential cleanup in sandboxes. - Add API, pipeline, authorization, sandbox, browser, and Storybook coverage. ## Verification - Live AgentMail testing covered WebSocket intake, signed webhooks, restart catch-up, and a full receive → task → Daytona Codex CLI → explicit reply → Delivered round trip. The reply was verified in the other inbox. The normal task composer also initiated an outgoing email child task. - The connector-skill change was verified in the browser: AgentMail appears once as an automatic, read-only skill with its assigned address. Disabling experimental chat connections removes it; re-enabling restores it. A regression test covers assignment data arriving after library data. - Connector regression coverage passed 178 runtime utility, email integration, skill-route, and heartbeat tests. All 17 Codex execution tests passed, including per-agent skill isolation, model identity, revision changes, removal, and prompt delivery without shared skill files. - After rebasing onto master, all 44 focused email, heartbeat, and native-authority tests passed. All 313 native-session executor tests passed. The UI regression suite passed all 3 tests. These test sets overlap earlier focused runs. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed after the rebase. Token gates passed. Earlier focused Playwright task/setup coverage and the Storybook build also passed. - Native connector tool execution uses deterministic integration tests. Live Daytona qualification used the Codex CLI adapter; the new shared-home prompt fallback has deterministic coverage. - The full repository suite is run by CI. The earlier unsharded local full-suite attempt was stopped after the equivalent CI suites passed and is not reported as a completed local run. Greptile reviewed `7e57dc267a8446d3c906e3cc5b8abc94fb8860eb` at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. All server, workspace, serialized server, and browser suites passed in CI. The build job hit a five-second timeout in a runner transport test; both variants and the full 80-test file passed locally with unchanged timeouts. The build passed on retry on the same commit without code or timeout changes. All required CI gates, including the final `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` summaries, are green on `7e57dc267a8446d3c906e3cc5b8abc94fb8860eb`. ## Risks - Email from external senders can start normal agent work. Setup recommends a low-trust agent and AgentMail sender controls. Sender addresses never grant board membership. - Provider timeouts can leave uncertain sends. Retries retain their idempotency key; expired windows require reconciliation or operator resolution. - Connector skills and native tools are assignment-dependent and require current access. Revocation denies retained calls; assignment changes select a new runtime context. - Activation remains behind the experimental-channel setting. The native runner path has deterministic coverage; live Daytona qualification used the Codex CLI adapter. - Schema changes are additive. Inbox ownership is unique across companies. Disconnect preserves provider inboxes and task history. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex). Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. The exact deployment model ID 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 - [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>	25 天前
complain	feat: add internal agent complaints and suggestions (#15367) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents use legacy skills or native runner tools to work on tasks. > - Those agents can encounter friction that does not belong in the task thread. > - A complaint should preserve the raw reaction. A suggestion should describe an improvement. > - This pull request adds attributed local storage and both submission paths. > - Agents can submit feedback once and continue their primary work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Server, database, shared contracts, runtime skills, and native runner tools. Problem or motivation Agents have no default internal channel for incidental complaints and suggestions. Sending this feedback through task comments adds noise and can alter task workflows. Proposed solution Store free-form feedback in the current instance database. Derive agent, run, company, and task attribution from active authority. Provide default legacy skills and provider-neutral native actions. Keep the instructions close to Warp's MIT-licensed originals. Alternatives considered Task comments and external Slack delivery add unwanted side effects. Mandatory suggestion fields and short editorial limits would discard useful feedback. This release has no listing API, UI, read tool, automatic triage, or external forwarding. Roadmap alignment This is a maintainer-requested addition to the existing runtime skills and runner tool paths. It does not duplicate a listed roadmap milestone. Searches for complaint tooling, suggestion-box, and agent commentary found no overlapping public PR or issue. ## What Changed - Add the company-scoped `agent_commentary` table, shared validation, and idempotent migration `0310`. - Add one transactional service and the agent-only POST route. Validate active authority before writes or replay. Redact known credentials. Commit a content-free audit with each new record. - Add `submit_complaint` and `submit_suggestion` to standard, ask, and planning modes. Keep review, revocation, and completion restrictions. Store replay identity on the commentary row. - Mount `complain` and `suggestion-box` by default for legacy agents. Bundle a dependency-free Node.js stdin helper in the operational skill and allow its POST through the sandbox bridge. - Preserve Warp's complaint voice and suggestion guidance, with attribution and local transport adaptations. Keep source attribution and MIT notices in each skill's LICENSE, outside runtime instructions. - Document custom-runtime HTTP use and database inspection. Add real-database tests and a repeatable live Codex smoke for local and Daytona execution. - Pin the lagging-source migration fixture before the identity-repair migration so later migrations preserve its regression coverage. ## Verification - Personally ran real Codex submissions in all four environments on 2026-10-06. Local runs passed at 20:35 UTC. Daytona native passed at 20:31 UTC; Daytona legacy passed at 20:33 UTC. Each stored exactly two rows with company, agent, run, and task attribution, wrote the continuation marker, exited zero, created no task comments, and left task status unchanged. Each recorded two content-free activity entries. - Daytona used production provider hooks, real remote execution and file transfer, the legacy queue callback bridge, and native private WebSocket ingress. The current Linux runner was built from `abf47b595`, staged, and verified against controller contracts. Both sandboxes were confirmed deleted. This is a focused feedback transport smoke; it does not claim full Runner E2E catalog or browser qualification. - The immutable base image and Linux binary digest are recorded in [the verification documentation](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/codex/agent-commentary/doc/agent-commentary.md#verification). The smoke script can save content-free JSON evidence. No credentials or feedback bodies are in these reports. \| Environment \| Runner \| Complaint row \| Suggestion row \| \| --- \| --- \| --- \| --- \| \| local \| legacy Codex \| `59413a00-1de2-4bb1-bcc6-9c4b54c64aa6` \| `3db2364d-3e15-4f47-846f-875d3902999d` \| \| local \| native Codex \| `5da22b5f-41df-4de5-8ba0-d9345ab01267` \| `2d5abe17-dd41-403c-a5ee-4729f2d58921` \| \| daytona \| legacy Codex \| `27c9d0aa-8477-409f-9da0-e8ffa48dee50` \| `209681c9-d1e9-4ce1-999e-48fa07692389` \| \| daytona \| native Codex \| `6eb001bb-4bcf-43f7-8717-f662f53dc7c3` \| `77c383d8-a997-49e5-a33e-25c70e15c0b2` \| - Run the local check with `node cli/node_modules/tsx/dist/cli.mjs server/scripts/verify-agent-commentary-live.ts`. The documentation gives the Daytona invocation. Both use disposable instance databases and normal Codex provider usage. - Repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed after the test extension. The build includes runner generation, contracts, and replay checks. The smoke scripts also passed a separate TypeScript check. The lagging-source migration regression passed. All equivalent current-head Vitest CI shards passed. The local monolithic `pnpm test:run` invocation was stopped after CI supplied that coverage; it did not complete locally. - Focused tests cover company isolation, spoofing, revoked credentials, stale ownership, post-finish rejection, concurrent replay, conflicting keys, atomic rollback, and deletion through existing services. Boundary tests cover empty text, Unicode, text beyond 8,000 characters, and the 524,288-character ceiling without truncation. Mounting tests cover Codex, Claude, and sandbox staging. Helper tests cover standalone Node execution, stdin, invalid UTF-8, redirects, HTTP failure, and its deadline. Privacy and bridge tests cover successful and rejected requests. - Instructions were compared with Warp's originals. MIT notices and source credits live only in LICENSE files. Native tools preserve truthful disclosure when asked, without routine announcements. - [Full CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37508559190) and Greptile 5/5 passed on the earlier feature commit `5209c3501`. The later head found the migration-fixture assumption fixed in this update. On `8a4965164`, all 55 check contexts passed after one browser shard rerun. Its initial reviewer signoff failure also passed an isolated local browser run (1 test). Greptile scored that head 5/5 and identified one smoke cleanup gap. `6ecbafb0b` fixes failed-acquisition cleanup with four passing tests and a passing smoke-script typecheck. Fresh CI is pending for this final test-only fix. No commentary production code changed during verification. ## Risks - Feedback is internally attributed. It is not anonymous. Existing redaction removes known credentials, but agents must still omit sensitive content. Normal provider transcripts can include their submitted arguments. - Default skill availability changes for existing legacy agents. Runtime policy filtering still applies. The helper uses the existing Node.js runtime with no extra dependencies; custom runtimes can call the HTTP endpoint. - Feedback is removed with its run, agent, or company. Task deletion clears only the issue pointer. Normal database backups include the table. - The migration is additive and has no backfill. Writes serialize on the active run for replay consistency. No server suggestion quota is imposed. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6-astra` through Codex, with `xhigh` reasoning effort and a reported 258,400-token context window. Capabilities used: repository inspection, code execution, and live runtime verification. No subagents were used. ## 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	23 小时前
paperclip-board	fix(security): route paperclipai CLI guidance through safe npx form (CWE-78) (#11400) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip provides CLI commands and guidance for operators and agents > - The `pnpm paperclipai` script can pass argument values through a shell > - Shell re-parsing can execute command substitutions inside quoted values > - This pull request routes guidance through inert-argv `npx paperclipai` commands and adds regression coverage > - The benefit is safer operator guidance across documentation and runtime hints ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request fixes a command-injection-class defect in Paperclip CLI guidance. What happened? The `pnpm paperclipai <sub> --flag "$VALUE"` form can re-parse argument values through a shell. A command substitution inside a quoted value can execute on the host. Expected behavior Paperclip guidance must pass CLI values as inert argument values. Host-derived values must not appear in copyable commands. Steps to reproduce 1. Run a Paperclip guidance command that uses the `pnpm paperclipai` script. 2. Provide a quoted value that contains a command substitution. 3. Observe that the shell can evaluate the substitution before the CLI starts. 4. Compare the result with the `npx paperclipai` form. Paperclip version or commit `5670984b75d109950c968542a0111ebb6967f4da` Deployment mode All deployment modes that show or use the affected CLI guidance. Installation method Built from source and installed CLI guidance. Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific (core bug). Database mode Not database-related. Access context Both. Additional context The earlier merged PR [#11343](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/11343) used the unsafe `pnpm exec paperclipai` form. This fresh PR replaces that guidance with the safe `npx paperclipai` form. ## What Changed - Standardize documentation and runtime hints on `npx paperclipai`. - Remove the broken `pnpm exec paperclipai` guidance. - Use a static `<host>` placeholder in private-hostname guidance. - Add regression tests for unsafe forms, continued lines, static hosts, and offline guidance. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master...origin/fix/paperclipai-cli-npx-safe-invocation` passes. - The branch adds `server/src/__tests__/cli-invocation-safety.test.ts` and updates private-hostname tests. - CI must run the new tests, typecheck, lint, and build checks. - Local Vitest execution was not available because this worktree has no installed Vitest binary. ## Risks - The change affects operator and agent documentation text. - The runtime hints now show `<host>` instead of a request-derived host value. - No database schema or migration changes exist. - CI will detect any missed unsafe invocation or type error. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5, exact model ID `gpt-5`, with tool use and code-review assistance. The model used repository inspection, Git operations, and PR preparation. ## 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] CI ran the test suites and they pass; local test execution was unavailable in this worktree - [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 addressed all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	1 个月前
paperclip-converting-plans-to-tasks	Shorten planning skills and measure task decomposition (#15296) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work for AI agents. > - Planning guidance helps agents choose owners and dependencies. > - The runtime skill favors few tasks, but the catalog skill requires a child-task breakdown. > - Both add repeated process instructions that can distract from the requested outcome. > - This change keeps the ownership and dependency rules and removes the required matrix and repeated checklist. > - A bounded Product E2E comparison measures saved outcomes and task handoffs before qualification. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11057. Related measurement work: #15218. What existing behavior does this improve? Planning and delegation through the runtime plan-to-tasks and bundled task-planning skills. Current behavior The two skills contain about 1,900 words and conflicting guidance on whether plans require child tasks. Proposed behavior Keep cohesive work with one owner. Split only for a real owner, parallel output, dependency, independent review, or follow-up lifecycle. Preserve existing authorization and planning mechanics. ## What Changed - Shorten both skills to about 400 words combined. Preserve their keys and installed-version behavior. - Remove the duplicate operational-skill pointer and regenerate affected source metadata. - Add twelve explicit Product E2E cells: four scenarios with current, short and disabled planning skills. - Use the current task composer and actual create-response ID; calibrate public skill APIs and browser creation without providers. - Eliminate an observed collision in chat-test company prefixes with a per-suite sequence. - Grade saved documents, exact author/run attribution, child count, prerequisite execution order, review boundaries and completion handoffs. - Retain current skill bytes and report source, selections, run accounting and failures. ## Verification - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck`: pass. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit`: 1,287 Vitest tests and 128 Node checks pass. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner -- --list --suite plan-task-guidance`: twelve local Codex cells. - Archived current skills match master `72ff3a9f27e581a27acb49771e8658bbb0bbaa47` exactly. - Corrected fixture: three real public-API/database calibrations pass with zero provider runs; all 35 evaluator checks and Product E2E typecheck pass. - Setup campaign [37399550253](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37399550253) was canceled after source review found unsupported bundled edits and automatic core reinstallation. Its paid-cell step was skipped: zero provider runs, no behavioral grade. - The next setup [37401094799](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37401094799) failed before task creation on the old title-field selector: zero actual runs, original FAIL retained, cleanup passed. A real browser/API calibration of the new helper passes with paused non-provider agents and zero runs. - Full local typecheck/build pass. Full local tests retain one unchanged five-minute Git streaming timeout (also fails isolated), 9,591 passes and 5,796 skips. CI's chat failure was a proven random fixture-prefix collision; five affected cases pass after the test-only repair. - Paid behavior comparison and new-head CI/review remain pending. This PR remains a draft. ## Risks - The shorter text may change delegation decisions. Live outcomes are not yet qualified. - The initial comparison uses one profile and one attempt per cell. It cannot establish cross-model reliability or cost trends. - Disabled means unassigned company-owned copies; the company library remains discoverable. This does not qualify global removal, automatic accepted-plan wiring changes, or installed-copy migration. - Skill availability does not prove a model read or cognitively used it. - No provider/tool protocol, permission, timeout or runtime lifecycle behavior changes in production. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with repository inspection, code editing and tool use. The exact backend model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. The declared eval model is native Codex `gpt-5.6-sol`. ## 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>	1 天前
paperclip-create-agent	fix(agents): reduce hiring templates to role descriptions (#14985) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - New agents receive role instructions from onboarding, the hiring skill, or a team package. > - These sources repeat harness procedures and impose generic work policies. > - They can crowd out the task and the harness instructions. > - This pull request reduces those sources to short role descriptions. > - It preserves configuration, skills, authentication, reporting lines, and approval controls. > - The benefit is less repeated instruction text with explicit coverage for the default hiring path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #3307. The CEO template can impose a fixed delegation route instead of letting the agent choose how to fulfill the request. This change removes that route. It does not implement autonomous goal selection. Related work: #14920 preserves stock Codex base instructions. #14948 reduces the generic manual and shared runtime prompts. #14961 improves native completion-tool descriptions. This PR is separate from those changes. ## What Changed - Select only the short CEO `AGENTS.md` for new default CEO bundles. Keep the three former companion files as compatibility assets. - Reduce the first-agent chief-of-staff prompt and coder, QA, UX, and security role examples. - Reduce seven bundled team role bodies. Preserve their role, reporting, and skill metadata. Regenerate the catalog. - Make hiring examples optional. Replace the long generic role manual with short role drafting guidance. Preserve explicit requester instructions. - Add configuration and import coverage for native and legacy managed bundles, custom instructions, first-agent rendering, and catalog contents. - Add an explicit-only hiring eval that starts from the production CEO default and checks one coder hire, independently computed JSON output, saved instructions, and worker reuse. - Include the full prompt comparison and a separate three-request drafting simulation. Neither is a live provider comparison. Prompt differences: [before and after](doc/plans/2026-10-02-hiring-template-prompt-diff.md). The CEO default falls from 1,897 to 20 words. The coder example falls from 652 to 18 words. Word counts describe instruction size, not outcome quality or billing. ## Verification - PASS: 99 focused server tests and eight shipped-catalog tests. - PASS: catalog generation and validation for four shipped teams. - PASS: hiring skill validation. - PASS: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - PASS: `pnpm build`. - INCOMPLETE: the full local `pnpm test:run` was stopped before rebase. Its original log is retained. This is not a completed full-suite pass. The full current-head GitHub CI workflow passed: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37073372419. - PASS: `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` and `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit` (63 files / 843 tests). - PASS: discovery for the two new hiring cells, 50 existing everyday cells, and the full 438-cell catalog. - PASS after rebase: 99 server tests, 11 catalog tests, 62 selected E2E support tests, and the E2E typecheck. - PASS: all current-head PR checks at `57dcee147ed0b2d2e3cc657cd9e50fb16bf9ec25`: 51 successful check runs, two intentional Storybook skips, and successful Snyk status. Fresh Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. - PENDING follow-up: matched live hiring runs on frozen integration refs. No live outcome-quality or non-regression result is claimed from the configuration checks or this merge. The new suite has two local native cells: Codex and ACPX Claude. It expects five provider turns per cell. It compares source-derived bundles, so the historical long templates remain admissible. Missing successful source-read receipts make a pair uncomparable. They do not establish a behavior regression or equivalence. ## Risks - New default roles have fewer prescribed procedures. Live checks must determine whether a removed instruction was needed for an outcome. - Existing custom and saved bundles keep their contents. The retained companion assets avoid a source-file compatibility break. - Specialized Summarizer, Reflection Coach, and Wiki Maintainer prompts remain unchanged. Their product contracts need separate review. - The generic non-CEO fallback reduction is in #14948. This PR alone does not provide its eight-word fallback. - Configuration tests and drafting simulations do not establish live outcome quality. QA, UX, security, and chief-of-staff hiring behavior remain outside the new two-cell comparison. > 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-6, with reasoning, code editing, shell tools, and delegated verification. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment model ID or 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>	4 天前
paperclip	fix(tasks): stop repeated reminders for historical questions (#15392) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task questions remain saved so a person can answer them later. > - The composer moves an old question into history after a newer human message. > - Native completion still treated every pending question as a required response. > - This caused agents to demand an old answer after the person moved work forward. > - This pull request shares the historical-question rule across context and task execution. > - Agents can finish verified work while the original question remains answerable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15229, Refs #14613, Refs #13130. What happened? An agent repeatedly asked a person to answer a question that had moved into feed history. Completion feedback explicitly told the agent to request a response. The saved pending row also blocked task completion. Expected behavior A question before newer human direction remains answerable in the feed. Its pending state alone must not require another reminder or stop completed work. A new input blocker, an approval, or a configured review stage must keep its gate. Steps to reproduce 1. Let a task agent create an ordinary question. 2. Dismiss the question and send a newer task message. 3. Let the agent finish the requested work and submit its completion report. 4. Observe a demand to answer the old question and a retained completion gate. ## What Changed - Add one company-scoped predicate for historical questions. Only later human comments count. Exclude agent attribution, run attribution, system notices, and untrusted source data. - Apply the predicate to completion feedback, native waits, finalization, commit validation, retry validation, blocked routing, and successful-run handoff. - Include question classification and guidance in heartbeat context and both native task-context tools. Add the guidance to fresh and resumed task prompts. - Replace automatic reminders for current ordinary questions with instructions to assess the real blocker, continue independent work, and withdraw obsolete questions through the existing API. - Preserve historical question rows during completion while cancelling their live native source runs through the existing post-commit and recovery paths. Let an authorized human answer them after completion without reopening work or creating a response wake. Preserve cancellation, current-input, approval, permission, credential, connection, and review gates. Add no dismissal storage or migration. - Document the rule in the execution contract and agent skill. Refresh generated capability source anchors. Add database-backed status, context, attribution, and governance regression tests. ## Verification - `pnpm build` passed. The server rebuild also passed after the lifecycle fix. Generated capability contract and inventory checks passed after the agent documentation update. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. Final `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` also passed after the last test additions. - Lifecycle and interaction regressions passed: 224 tests in 3 suites. Context and prompt tests also passed. Final historical-question cases passed (33 tests), native cancellation/recovery cases passed (6 tests), and the existing interaction/confirmation suites passed (72 tests). The full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after more than two hours with unrelated fixture/hook timeout failures; it did not pass. All 52 successful GitHub checks are green on the latest commit, including the complete test matrix; no checks are pending or failing. Greptile is 5/5 and both review threads are resolved. - Regression cases cover the old-question/new-human-message sequence, final task status, answering after completion with no wake, live-run cancellation and crash recovery, current input blockers, both task-context tools, API context, timestamp precision, attribution boundaries, and protected gates. ## Risks - A later human task message makes an earlier ordinary question historical even if its input is still missing. The agent must identify the current blocker and ask only for information that still prevents work. - Browser dismissal remains a local preference. Dismissal without a later human message is not recorded by this change. - No schema change or data migration. Completion retains ordinary historical questions; cancellation still expires them. A completed task accepts historical answers only from an authorized human and creates no response-delivery outbox row. Governed requests retain their gates. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository editing, code execution, and browser diagnostics. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size are 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 - [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>	18 小时前
para-memory-files	Shorten skill frontmatter descriptions (#9353) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip agents can load repository and catalog skills, and Codex renders skill names and frontmatter descriptions into startup context. > - Long descriptions consume the fixed skill metadata budget before Codex can use the progressively disclosed skill bodies. > - The repo `.agents/skills` descriptions and a few shipped catalog descriptions had grown into operational documentation instead of short trigger metadata. > - This pull request keeps the strongest trigger language in frontmatter while leaving detailed procedures in each skill body. > - The benefit is lower prompt overhead, more reliable skill triggering, and a regression guard that prevents description drift from returning. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue found for this maintenance item. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am working against `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the issue originates in Paperclip's shipped skill metadata, not in a local agent adapter or provider. ### What happened? Codex startup renders discovered skill names and frontmatter descriptions into a fixed skill metadata budget. Several repository skill descriptions and one shipped catalog description had grown into long-form operational guidance, which can force Codex to truncate descriptions before the model has enough trigger signal to select the right skill. ### Expected behavior Skill frontmatter descriptions should stay short trigger summaries: one capability sentence plus a “use when” clause. Detailed procedures should stay in the skill body and load only after the skill triggers. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Inspect `.agents/skills//SKILL.md` and `packages/skills-catalog/catalog//SKILL.md` frontmatter descriptions. 2. Measure folded YAML `description` values. 3. Observe descriptions above the intended short-trigger range, including descriptions above 300 characters. 4. Run the new shipped catalog test to verify future descriptions stay capped. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on `master` at `cc81eefb6047d8eaf57faf785f421c03dc97073c`. ### Deployment mode Local dev / source checkout metadata inspection. This is not database-related. ### Installation method Built from source. ### Agent adapter(s) involved Codex, because Codex startup uses the skill metadata prompt budget. The metadata source itself is core repository/catalog content. ### Database mode Not database-related. ### Access context Not applicable; this is static repository metadata. ### Node.js version `v22.22.2` in the verification environment. ### Operating system Linux container environment. ### Relevant logs or output Final measurement after this PR: 29 source `SKILL.md` files, max description length 215 chars, 5,449 total description chars, estimated 1,363 description tokens at 4 chars/token. ### Relevant config None. ### Additional context The shipped catalog manifest was regenerated so the generated package metadata matches the edited catalog `SKILL.md` sources. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Shortened long `.agents/skills//SKILL.md` frontmatter descriptions to concise capability plus use-when trigger clauses. - Shortened the over-budget shipped skills catalog descriptions for wireframe, Paperclip capsules, and reflection coach. - Regenerated `packages/skills-catalog/generated/catalog.json` so shipped metadata matches source skill frontmatter. - Added a Vitest regression guard that caps repo skill source descriptions and generated catalog descriptions at 300 characters. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog build:manifest` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test` — 5 files passed, 19 tests passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog typecheck` - Final measurement: 29 source `SKILL.md` files, max description length 215 chars, 5,449 total description chars, estimated 1,363 description tokens at 4 chars/token. Note: the clean PR worktree was created from `origin/master` and contains only this commit, but it does not have `node_modules`; running `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test` there failed at tool/package resolution (`vitest`, `tsc`, `@paperclipai/shared`). The dependency-equipped workspace passed the commands above before the commit was cherry-picked onto the clean branch. ## Risks Low risk. This changes skill metadata and tests only. The main risk is over-trimming a useful trigger phrase, mitigated by keeping explicit “use when” clauses and leaving detailed guidance in the skill bodies. > 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 Codex coding agent via Paperclip/Codex, with shell and file-edit tool use. Exact API model ID and context window were not exposed in 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 - [ ] 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>	2 个月前
slack	feat(slack): connect Paperclip conversations and scheduled messages (#13920) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Slack conversations use the same tasks and agents as the Paperclip board. > - A board reply must reach that Slack conversation and let the agent continue the work. > - An assigned agent also needs its Slack tools during normal tasks and scheduled routines. > - Both paths must keep the linked user's authority, delivery rules, and conversation history. > - This pull request adds those paths and reduces setup friction for Slack bots. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Server orchestration, Slack connector tools, shared contracts, and chat setup UI. Problem or motivation Replies entered in Paperclip did not provide a complete round trip to the linked Slack thread. Slack and board wakeups could select different model sessions for the same task. Agents also lacked their assigned Slack tools outside Slack-origin work, which prevented a routine from sending its responsible user a briefing. Inviting a bot could leave the new channel disabled. Proposed solution Mirror human board messages with author attribution and route the agent result to the same thread. Use the same session key across both entry points. Supply Slack tools to the connection's assigned agent in normal tasks and routines, using the current responsible user's verified link. Enable newly invited channels while preserving explicit disabled choices. Add a browser-agent setup prompt to the Slack wizard. Alternatives considered A separate Slack scheduler or task dispatcher would duplicate existing Paperclip workflows. Reusing the connection owner's identity would grant the wrong authority. Replaying old channel history could start unintended work. This change uses ordinary task wakeups, routine dispatch, and Slack's original invitation mention event instead. Roadmap alignment Extends the shipped Scheduled Routines and governed Apps capabilities. It does not add a separate task lifecycle. Related work: #13828 and #13809. Related test stabilization: #13877. The existing plugin Slack-control proposals are separate from this built-in connector change. ## What Changed - Queue human Paperclip messages for the original Slack thread with display-name attribution and stable delivery identities. Require the author’s current linked Slack identity and recheck access before delivering messages or agent replies. - Apply pause, dependency, cancellation, and closed-workspace guards before explicit Board sends request work and again when the durable outbox dispatches it. - Route agent results back to Slack and preserve model-session continuity, including replies that reopen completed tasks. - Resolve assigned Slack connections for normal agent tasks and routines. Recheck the responsible user's link, membership, and permissions at execution. - Add `slack_open_dm` for the responsible user's bot DM and request the `im:write` scope. - Enable newly discovered invited channels. Keep explicit OFF choices and normal admission and deduplication rules. - Add a copyable Slack setup prompt for a computer-use agent, with Storybook coverage. Share the prompt-button component with GitHub. - Update Slack tool documentation and runtime instructions. - Stabilize the mobile project browser test by waiting for the final canonical route before editing, preserving all persistence assertions. ## Verification - Live staging: invited the bot after the first mention. The channel became enabled and the bot answered that original mention. - Live staging: a normal Paperclip reply appeared in Slack with author attribution. The agent completed the calculation and replied once in the original thread and in Paperclip. - Live staging: a codeword entered in Slack was recalled from Paperclip. A following Slack calculation used the result from the Paperclip turn. Run metadata confirmed the same model session for both entry points. - Live staging: a scheduled routine used `slack_open_dm` and `slack_post_message` to deliver one DM. The existing app was reinstalled with `im:write`. The test routine was paused after verification. - Before the master merge: 397 focused feature tests passed. The continuity fix passed all 76 issue comment/update route tests and six focused route/integration cases. Typecheck, build, and token gates passed. - Review fixes: 47 focused integration cases passed, covering link revocation/replacement, private membership removal, guarded outbox dispatch, concurrent workers, lost scheduler responses, a real one-connection pool, exact reply provenance, and attachment retries. All 99 issue-comment route tests and the Slack catalog browser test passed. - Full local typecheck, production build, token gates, and module-boundary checks passed. The full local test command passed 25,915 tests before a 15-second timeout in `issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts`; that entire suite passed on isolated rerun (81 tests). Remaining serialized coverage is provided by the current-head CI shards. - An unchanged Cursor adapter test hit its 10-second limit in CI; all five tests in that file passed on a local rerun in 3.11 seconds, and the failed CI shard passed on its single retry. - The preview-server readiness test passed a local rerun (28 tests). The mobile-project readiness fix passed three repetitions of both browser tests (6/6). - Final commit `64ac0d9897f4353375996f1b1b38e5040bdeb0a0`: all CI gates passed, including all eight browser shards, all server/chat suites, typecheck, build, runner checks, and security checks. Greptile reviewed this exact commit at 5/5; all review threads are resolved. ## Risks - Human messages on a Slack-linked task now publish to its Slack thread. The task banner states this behavior. Incoming Slack messages and internal agent bookkeeping must not echo back. - Normal tasks and routines can now use the assigned bot. Authority remains bound to the current responsible user's link; it does not fall back to the connection owner. Revocation, private-context limits, and queued-write checks still apply. - Existing Slack apps need `im:write` and a reinstall to open DMs. Other existing capabilities remain available without that scope. - New invited channels default to enabled. Explicit disabled choices remain disabled. Channels created by bot tools still require a person to enable responses. - No database migration or new provider credentials are required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, GitHub CLI, and browser tools. The runtime does not expose a more specific model build identifier or 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>	13 天前
suggestion-box	feat: add internal agent complaints and suggestions (#15367) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents use legacy skills or native runner tools to work on tasks. > - Those agents can encounter friction that does not belong in the task thread. > - A complaint should preserve the raw reaction. A suggestion should describe an improvement. > - This pull request adds attributed local storage and both submission paths. > - Agents can submit feedback once and continue their primary work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Server, database, shared contracts, runtime skills, and native runner tools. Problem or motivation Agents have no default internal channel for incidental complaints and suggestions. Sending this feedback through task comments adds noise and can alter task workflows. Proposed solution Store free-form feedback in the current instance database. Derive agent, run, company, and task attribution from active authority. Provide default legacy skills and provider-neutral native actions. Keep the instructions close to Warp's MIT-licensed originals. Alternatives considered Task comments and external Slack delivery add unwanted side effects. Mandatory suggestion fields and short editorial limits would discard useful feedback. This release has no listing API, UI, read tool, automatic triage, or external forwarding. Roadmap alignment This is a maintainer-requested addition to the existing runtime skills and runner tool paths. It does not duplicate a listed roadmap milestone. Searches for complaint tooling, suggestion-box, and agent commentary found no overlapping public PR or issue. ## What Changed - Add the company-scoped `agent_commentary` table, shared validation, and idempotent migration `0310`. - Add one transactional service and the agent-only POST route. Validate active authority before writes or replay. Redact known credentials. Commit a content-free audit with each new record. - Add `submit_complaint` and `submit_suggestion` to standard, ask, and planning modes. Keep review, revocation, and completion restrictions. Store replay identity on the commentary row. - Mount `complain` and `suggestion-box` by default for legacy agents. Bundle a dependency-free Node.js stdin helper in the operational skill and allow its POST through the sandbox bridge. - Preserve Warp's complaint voice and suggestion guidance, with attribution and local transport adaptations. Keep source attribution and MIT notices in each skill's LICENSE, outside runtime instructions. - Document custom-runtime HTTP use and database inspection. Add real-database tests and a repeatable live Codex smoke for local and Daytona execution. - Pin the lagging-source migration fixture before the identity-repair migration so later migrations preserve its regression coverage. ## Verification - Personally ran real Codex submissions in all four environments on 2026-10-06. Local runs passed at 20:35 UTC. Daytona native passed at 20:31 UTC; Daytona legacy passed at 20:33 UTC. Each stored exactly two rows with company, agent, run, and task attribution, wrote the continuation marker, exited zero, created no task comments, and left task status unchanged. Each recorded two content-free activity entries. - Daytona used production provider hooks, real remote execution and file transfer, the legacy queue callback bridge, and native private WebSocket ingress. The current Linux runner was built from `abf47b595`, staged, and verified against controller contracts. Both sandboxes were confirmed deleted. This is a focused feedback transport smoke; it does not claim full Runner E2E catalog or browser qualification. - The immutable base image and Linux binary digest are recorded in [the verification documentation](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/codex/agent-commentary/doc/agent-commentary.md#verification). The smoke script can save content-free JSON evidence. No credentials or feedback bodies are in these reports. \| Environment \| Runner \| Complaint row \| Suggestion row \| \| --- \| --- \| --- \| --- \| \| local \| legacy Codex \| `59413a00-1de2-4bb1-bcc6-9c4b54c64aa6` \| `3db2364d-3e15-4f47-846f-875d3902999d` \| \| local \| native Codex \| `5da22b5f-41df-4de5-8ba0-d9345ab01267` \| `2d5abe17-dd41-403c-a5ee-4729f2d58921` \| \| daytona \| legacy Codex \| `27c9d0aa-8477-409f-9da0-e8ffa48dee50` \| `209681c9-d1e9-4ce1-999e-48fa07692389` \| \| daytona \| native Codex \| `6eb001bb-4bcf-43f7-8717-f662f53dc7c3` \| `77c383d8-a997-49e5-a33e-25c70e15c0b2` \| - Run the local check with `node cli/node_modules/tsx/dist/cli.mjs server/scripts/verify-agent-commentary-live.ts`. The documentation gives the Daytona invocation. Both use disposable instance databases and normal Codex provider usage. - Repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed after the test extension. The build includes runner generation, contracts, and replay checks. The smoke scripts also passed a separate TypeScript check. The lagging-source migration regression passed. All equivalent current-head Vitest CI shards passed. The local monolithic `pnpm test:run` invocation was stopped after CI supplied that coverage; it did not complete locally. - Focused tests cover company isolation, spoofing, revoked credentials, stale ownership, post-finish rejection, concurrent replay, conflicting keys, atomic rollback, and deletion through existing services. Boundary tests cover empty text, Unicode, text beyond 8,000 characters, and the 524,288-character ceiling without truncation. Mounting tests cover Codex, Claude, and sandbox staging. Helper tests cover standalone Node execution, stdin, invalid UTF-8, redirects, HTTP failure, and its deadline. Privacy and bridge tests cover successful and rejected requests. - Instructions were compared with Warp's originals. MIT notices and source credits live only in LICENSE files. Native tools preserve truthful disclosure when asked, without routine announcements. - [Full CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37508559190) and Greptile 5/5 passed on the earlier feature commit `5209c3501`. The later head found the migration-fixture assumption fixed in this update. On `8a4965164`, all 55 check contexts passed after one browser shard rerun. Its initial reviewer signoff failure also passed an isolated local browser run (1 test). Greptile scored that head 5/5 and identified one smoke cleanup gap. `6ecbafb0b` fixes failed-acquisition cleanup with four passing tests and a passing smoke-script typecheck. Fresh CI is pending for this final test-only fix. No commentary production code changed during verification. ## Risks - Feedback is internally attributed. It is not anonymous. Existing redaction removes known credentials, but agents must still omit sensitive content. Normal provider transcripts can include their submitted arguments. - Default skill availability changes for existing legacy agents. Runtime policy filtering still applies. The helper uses the existing Node.js runtime with no extra dependencies; custom runtimes can call the HTTP endpoint. - Feedback is removed with its run, agent, or company. Task deletion clears only the issue pointer. Normal database backups include the table. - The migration is additive and has no backfill. Writes serialize on the active run for replay consistency. No server suggestion quota is imposed. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6-astra` through Codex, with `xhigh` reasoning effort and a reported 258,400-token context window. Capabilities used: repository inspection, code execution, and live runtime verification. No subagents were used. ## 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	23 小时前