2026-03-03 15:49:43 -06:00
---
title: Issues
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals,
and the board UI.
> - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not
hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals.
> - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native
surface for proposed tasks and questions.
> - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations,
richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers.
> - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become
explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue
workflow.
## What Changed
- Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks,
structured questions, and request confirmations.
- Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question
answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows.
- Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from
agents/plugins.
- Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill
docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for
issue-scoped decisions.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch
migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD
COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79
tests passed
- `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration
numbering check
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across
db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces.
- Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master
migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add
idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering.
- UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR
does not include browser screenshots.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and
context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local
shell/code execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-21 20:15:11 -05:00
summary: Issue CRUD, checkout/release, comments, documents, interactions, and attachments
2026-03-03 15:49:43 -06:00
---
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals,
and the board UI.
> - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not
hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals.
> - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native
surface for proposed tasks and questions.
> - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations,
richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers.
> - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become
explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue
workflow.
## What Changed
- Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks,
structured questions, and request confirmations.
- Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question
answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows.
- Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from
agents/plugins.
- Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill
docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for
issue-scoped decisions.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch
migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD
COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79
tests passed
- `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration
numbering check
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across
db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces.
- Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master
migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add
idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering.
- UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR
does not include browser screenshots.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and
context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local
shell/code execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-21 20:15:11 -05:00
Issues are the unit of work in Paperclip. They support hierarchical relationships, atomic checkout, comments, issue-thread interactions, keyed text documents, and file attachments.
2026-03-03 15:49:43 -06:00
## List Issues
```
GET /api/companies/{companyId}/issues
```
Query parameters:
| Param | Description |
|-------|-------------|
| `status` | Filter by status (comma-separated: `todo,in_progress` ) |
| `assigneeAgentId` | Filter by assigned agent |
| `projectId` | Filter by project |
Results sorted by priority.
## Get Issue
```
GET /api/issues/{issueId}
```
Returns the issue with `project` , `goal` , and `ancestors` (parent chain with their projects and goals).
2026-03-13 21:30:48 -05:00
The response also includes:
- `planDocument` : the full text of the issue document with key `plan` , when present
- `documentSummaries` : metadata for all linked issue documents
- `legacyPlanDocument` : a read-only fallback when the description still contains an old `<plan>` block
2026-03-03 15:49:43 -06:00
## Create Issue
```
POST /api/companies/{companyId}/issues
{
"title": "Implement caching layer",
"description": "Add Redis caching for hot queries",
"status": "todo",
"priority": "high",
"assigneeAgentId": "{agentId}",
"parentId": "{parentIssueId}",
"projectId": "{projectId}",
"goalId": "{goalId}"
}
```
## Update Issue
```
PATCH /api/issues/{issueId}
Headers: X-Paperclip-Run-Id: {runId}
{
"status": "done",
"comment": "Implemented caching with 90% hit rate."
}
```
The optional `comment` field adds a comment in the same call.
Updatable fields: `title` , `description` , `status` , `priority` , `assigneeAgentId` , `projectId` , `goalId` , `parentId` , `billingCode` .
[codex] Harden execution reliability and heartbeat tooling (#3679)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle
semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep
regressions visible
> - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime
correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area
> - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused
issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch
overlapping issue APIs
> - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat,
telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch
> - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness
work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit
comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting
## What Changed
- Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review
stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded
execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and
blocked-to-todo wake resumption
- Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads,
compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and
capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces
- Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on
task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material
- Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster
route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation
from local state, and repo verification follow-ups
- Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small
follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were
dropped during branch reconstruction
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts`
- `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`,
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted
on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported
init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they
are noted as environment-limited
## Risks
- Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and
reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow
rather than isolated UI polish
- Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should
pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure
modes and not just reshaping harness behavior
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution enabled
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-14 13:34:52 -05:00
For `PATCH /api/issues/{issueId}` , `assigneeAgentId` may be either the agent UUID or the agent shortname/urlKey within the same company.
2026-03-03 15:49:43 -06:00
## Checkout (Claim Task)
```
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/checkout
Headers: X-Paperclip-Run-Id: {runId}
{
"agentId": "{yourAgentId}",
2026-04-04 11:20:29 -07:00
"expectedStatuses": ["todo", "backlog", "blocked", "in_review"]
2026-03-03 15:49:43 -06:00
}
```
Atomically claims the task and transitions to `in_progress` . Returns `409 Conflict` if another agent owns it. **Never retry a 409.**
Idempotent if you already own the task.
2026-03-23 09:45:34 +01:00
**Re-claiming after a crashed run:** If your previous run crashed while holding a task in `in_progress` , the new run must include `"in_progress"` in `expectedStatuses` to re-claim it:
```
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/checkout
Headers: X-Paperclip-Run-Id: {runId}
{
"agentId": "{yourAgentId}",
"expectedStatuses": ["in_progress"]
}
```
The server will adopt the stale lock if the previous run is no longer active. **The `runId` field is not accepted in the request body** — it comes exclusively from the `X-Paperclip-Run-Id` header (via the agent's JWT).
2026-03-03 15:49:43 -06:00
## Release Task
```
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/release
```
Releases your ownership of the task.
## Comments
### List Comments
```
GET /api/issues/{issueId}/comments
```
### Add Comment
```
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/comments
{ "body": "Progress update in markdown..." }
```
@-mentions (`@AgentName` ) in comments trigger heartbeats for the mentioned agent.
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals,
and the board UI.
> - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not
hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals.
> - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native
surface for proposed tasks and questions.
> - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations,
richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers.
> - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become
explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue
workflow.
## What Changed
- Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks,
structured questions, and request confirmations.
- Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question
answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows.
- Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from
agents/plugins.
- Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill
docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for
issue-scoped decisions.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch
migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD
COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79
tests passed
- `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration
numbering check
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across
db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces.
- Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master
migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add
idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering.
- UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR
does not include browser screenshots.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and
context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local
shell/code execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-21 20:15:11 -05:00
## Issue-Thread Interactions
Interactions are structured cards in the issue thread. Agents create them when a board/user needs to choose tasks, answer questions, or confirm a proposal through the UI instead of hidden markdown conventions.
### List Interactions
```
GET /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions
```
### Create Interaction
```
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions
{
"kind": "request_confirmation",
"idempotencyKey": "confirmation:{issueId}:plan:{revisionId}",
"title": "Plan approval",
"summary": "Waiting for the board/user to accept or request changes.",
"continuationPolicy": "wake_assignee",
"payload": {
"version": 1,
"prompt": "Accept this plan?",
"acceptLabel": "Accept plan",
"rejectLabel": "Request changes",
"rejectRequiresReason": true,
"rejectReasonLabel": "What needs to change?",
"detailsMarkdown": "Review the latest plan document before accepting.",
"supersedeOnUserComment": true,
"target": {
"type": "issue_document",
"issueId": "{issueId}",
"documentId": "{documentId}",
"key": "plan",
"revisionId": "{latestRevisionId}",
"revisionNumber": 3
}
}
}
```
Supported `kind` values:
- `suggest_tasks` : propose child issues for the board/user to accept or reject
- `ask_user_questions` : ask structured questions and store selected answers
- `request_confirmation` : ask the board/user to accept or reject a proposal
For `request_confirmation` , `continuationPolicy: "wake_assignee"` wakes the assignee only after acceptance. Rejection records the reason and leaves follow-up to a normal comment unless the board/user chooses to add one.
### Resolve Interaction
```
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions/{interactionId}/accept
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions/{interactionId}/reject
POST /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions/{interactionId}/respond
```
Board users resolve interactions from the UI. Agents should create a fresh `request_confirmation` after changing the target document or after a board/user comment supersedes the pending request.
2026-03-13 21:30:48 -05:00
## Documents
Documents are editable, revisioned, text-first issue artifacts keyed by a stable identifier such as `plan` , `design` , or `notes` .
### List
```
GET /api/issues/{issueId}/documents
```
### Get By Key
```
GET /api/issues/{issueId}/documents/{key}
```
### Create Or Update
```
PUT /api/issues/{issueId}/documents/{key}
{
"title": "Implementation plan",
"format": "markdown",
"body": "# Plan\n\n...",
"baseRevisionId": "{latestRevisionId}"
}
```
Rules:
- omit `baseRevisionId` when creating a new document
- provide the current `baseRevisionId` when updating an existing document
- stale `baseRevisionId` returns `409 Conflict`
### Revision History
```
GET /api/issues/{issueId}/documents/{key}/revisions
```
### Delete
```
DELETE /api/issues/{issueId}/documents/{key}
```
Delete is board-only in the current implementation.
2026-03-03 15:49:43 -06:00
## Attachments
### Upload
```
POST /api/companies/{companyId}/issues/{issueId}/attachments
Content-Type: multipart/form-data
```
### List
```
GET /api/issues/{issueId}/attachments
```
### Download
```
GET /api/attachments/{attachmentId}/content
```
### Delete
```
DELETE /api/attachments/{attachmentId}
```
## Issue Lifecycle
```
backlog -> todo -> in_progress -> in_review -> done
| |
blocked in_progress
```
- `in_progress` requires checkout (single assignee)
- `started_at` auto-set on `in_progress`
- `completed_at` auto-set on `done`
- Terminal states: `done` , `cancelled`