[codex] Improve issue thread review flow (#4381)

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Issue detail is where operators coordinate review, approvals, and
follow-up work with active runs
> - That thread UI needs to surface blockers, descendants, review
handoffs, and reply ergonomics clearly enough for humans to guide agent
work
> - Several small gaps in the issue-thread flow were making review and
navigation clunkier than necessary
> - This pull request improves the reply composer, descendant/blocker
presentation, interaction folding, and review-request handoff plumbing
together as one cohesive issue-thread workflow slice
> - The benefit is a cleaner operator review loop without changing the
broader task model

## What Changed

- restored and refined the floating reply composer behavior in the issue
thread
- folded expired confirmation interactions and improved post-submit
thread scrolling behavior
- surfaced descendant issue context and inline blocker/paused-assignee
notices on the issue detail view
- tightened large-board first paint behavior in `IssuesList`
- added loose review-request handoffs through the issue
execution-policy/update path and covered them with tests

## Verification

- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-tree.test.ts
ui/src/api/issues.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts -t "coerces
executor handoff patches into workflow-controlled review wakes|wakes the
return assignee with execution_changes_requested"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`

## Visual Evidence

- UI layout changes are covered by the focused issue-thread component
and issue-detail tests listed above. Browser screenshots were not
attachable from this automated greploop environment, so reviewers should
use the running preview for final visual confirmation.

## Risks

- Moderate UI-flow risk: these changes touch the issue detail experience
in multiple spots, so regressions would most likely show up as
thread-layout quirks or incorrect review-handoff behavior

> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex GPT-5-based coding agent with tool use and code execution
in the Codex CLI environment

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots or documented the visual verification path
- [ ] 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>

packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts

@@ -326,6 +326,34 @@ describe("renderPaperclipWakePrompt", () => {
     expect(prompt).toContain("PAP-1723 Finish blocker (todo)");
   });
 
+  it("renders loose review request instructions for execution handoffs", () => {
+    const prompt = renderPaperclipWakePrompt({
+      reason: "execution_review_requested",
+      issue: {
+        id: "issue-1",
+        identifier: "PAP-2011",
+        title: "Review request handoff",
+        status: "in_review",
+      },
+      executionStage: {
+        wakeRole: "reviewer",
+        stageId: "stage-1",
+        stageType: "review",
+        currentParticipant: { type: "agent", agentId: "agent-1" },
+        returnAssignee: { type: "agent", agentId: "agent-2" },
+        reviewRequest: {
+          instructions: "Please focus on edge cases and leave a short risk summary.",
+        },
+        allowedActions: ["approve", "request_changes"],
+      },
+      fallbackFetchNeeded: false,
+    });
+
+    expect(prompt).toContain("Review request instructions:");
+    expect(prompt).toContain("Please focus on edge cases and leave a short risk summary.");
+    expect(prompt).toContain("You are waking as the active reviewer for this issue.");
+  });
+
   it("includes continuation and child issue summaries in structured wake context", () => {
     const payload = {
       reason: "issue_children_completed",

packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts

@@ -282,6 +282,9 @@ type PaperclipWakeExecutionStage = {
   stageType: string | null;
   currentParticipant: PaperclipWakeExecutionPrincipal | null;
   returnAssignee: PaperclipWakeExecutionPrincipal | null;
+  reviewRequest: {
+    instructions: string;
+  } | null;
   lastDecisionOutcome: string | null;
   allowedActions: string[];
 };
@@ -484,11 +487,14 @@ function normalizePaperclipWakeExecutionStage(value: unknown): PaperclipWakeExec
     : [];
   const currentParticipant = normalizePaperclipWakeExecutionPrincipal(stage.currentParticipant);
   const returnAssignee = normalizePaperclipWakeExecutionPrincipal(stage.returnAssignee);
+  const reviewRequestRaw = parseObject(stage.reviewRequest);
+  const reviewInstructions = asString(reviewRequestRaw.instructions, "").trim();
+  const reviewRequest = reviewInstructions ? { instructions: reviewInstructions } : null;
   const stageId = asString(stage.stageId, "").trim() || null;
   const stageType = asString(stage.stageType, "").trim() || null;
   const lastDecisionOutcome = asString(stage.lastDecisionOutcome, "").trim() || null;
 
-  if (!wakeRole && !stageId && !stageType && !currentParticipant && !returnAssignee && !lastDecisionOutcome && allowedActions.length === 0) {
+  if (!wakeRole && !stageId && !stageType && !currentParticipant && !returnAssignee && !reviewRequest && !lastDecisionOutcome && allowedActions.length === 0) {
     return null;
   }
 
@@ -498,6 +504,7 @@ function normalizePaperclipWakeExecutionStage(value: unknown): PaperclipWakeExec
     stageType,
     currentParticipant,
     returnAssignee,
+    reviewRequest,
     lastDecisionOutcome,
     allowedActions,
   };
@@ -664,6 +671,13 @@ export function renderPaperclipWakePrompt(
     if (executionStage.allowedActions.length > 0) {
       lines.push(`- allowed actions: ${executionStage.allowedActions.join(", ")}`);
     }
+    if (executionStage.reviewRequest) {
+      lines.push(
+        "",
+        "Review request instructions:",
+        executionStage.reviewRequest.instructions,
+      );
+    }
     lines.push("");
     if (executionStage.wakeRole === "reviewer" || executionStage.wakeRole === "approver") {
       lines.push(