[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>

server/src/services/issue-execution-policy.ts

@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ type TransitionInput = {
   requestedAssigneePatch: RequestedAssigneePatch;
   actor: ActorLike;
   commentBody?: string | null;
+  reviewRequest?: IssueExecutionState["reviewRequest"] | null;
 };
 
 type TransitionResult = {
@@ -168,6 +169,7 @@ function buildCompletedState(previous: IssueExecutionState | null, currentStage:
     currentStageType: null,
     currentParticipant: null,
     returnAssignee: previous?.returnAssignee ?? null,
+    reviewRequest: null,
     completedStageIds,
     lastDecisionId: previous?.lastDecisionId ?? null,
     lastDecisionOutcome: "approved",
@@ -186,6 +188,7 @@ function buildStateWithCompletedStages(input: {
     currentStageType: input.previous?.currentStageType ?? null,
     currentParticipant: input.previous?.currentParticipant ?? null,
     returnAssignee: input.previous?.returnAssignee ?? input.returnAssignee,
+    reviewRequest: input.previous?.reviewRequest ?? null,
     completedStageIds: input.completedStageIds,
     lastDecisionId: input.previous?.lastDecisionId ?? null,
     lastDecisionOutcome: input.previous?.lastDecisionOutcome ?? null,
@@ -204,6 +207,7 @@ function buildSkippedStageCompletedState(input: {
     currentStageType: null,
     currentParticipant: null,
     returnAssignee: input.previous?.returnAssignee ?? input.returnAssignee,
+    reviewRequest: null,
     completedStageIds: input.completedStageIds,
     lastDecisionId: input.previous?.lastDecisionId ?? null,
     lastDecisionOutcome: input.previous?.lastDecisionOutcome ?? null,
@@ -216,6 +220,7 @@ function buildPendingState(input: {
   stageIndex: number;
   participant: IssueExecutionStagePrincipal;
   returnAssignee: IssueExecutionStagePrincipal | null;
+  reviewRequest?: IssueExecutionState["reviewRequest"] | null;
 }): IssueExecutionState {
   return {
     status: PENDING_STATUS,
@@ -224,6 +229,7 @@ function buildPendingState(input: {
     currentStageType: input.stage.type,
     currentParticipant: input.participant,
     returnAssignee: input.returnAssignee,
+    reviewRequest: input.reviewRequest ?? null,
     completedStageIds: input.previous?.completedStageIds ?? [],
     lastDecisionId: input.previous?.lastDecisionId ?? null,
     lastDecisionOutcome: input.previous?.lastDecisionOutcome ?? null,
@@ -236,6 +242,7 @@ function buildChangesRequestedState(previous: IssueExecutionState, currentStage:
     status: CHANGES_REQUESTED_STATUS,
     currentStageId: currentStage.id,
     currentStageType: currentStage.type,
+    reviewRequest: null,
     lastDecisionOutcome: "changes_requested",
   };
 }
@@ -247,6 +254,7 @@ function buildPendingStagePatch(input: {
   stage: IssueExecutionStage;
   participant: IssueExecutionStagePrincipal;
   returnAssignee: IssueExecutionStagePrincipal | null;
+  reviewRequest?: IssueExecutionState["reviewRequest"] | null;
 }) {
   input.patch.status = "in_review";
   Object.assign(input.patch, patchForPrincipal(input.participant));
@@ -256,6 +264,7 @@ function buildPendingStagePatch(input: {
     stageIndex: input.policy.stages.findIndex((candidate) => candidate.id === input.stage.id),
     participant: input.participant,
     returnAssignee: input.returnAssignee,
+    reviewRequest: input.reviewRequest,
   });
 }
 
@@ -295,6 +304,9 @@ export function applyIssueExecutionPolicyTransition(input: TransitionInput): Tra
   const currentStage = input.policy ? findStageById(input.policy, existingState?.currentStageId) : null;
   const requestedStatus = input.requestedStatus;
   const activeStage = currentStage && existingState?.status === PENDING_STATUS ? currentStage : null;
+  const effectiveReviewRequest = input.reviewRequest === undefined
+    ? existingState?.reviewRequest ?? null
+    : input.reviewRequest;
 
   if (!input.policy) {
     if (existingState) {
@@ -359,6 +371,7 @@ export function applyIssueExecutionPolicyTransition(input: TransitionInput): Tra
         stage: activeStage,
         participant,
         returnAssignee: existingState?.returnAssignee ?? currentAssignee ?? actor,
+        reviewRequest: effectiveReviewRequest,
       });
       return {
         patch,
@@ -405,6 +418,7 @@ export function applyIssueExecutionPolicyTransition(input: TransitionInput): Tra
           stage: nextStage,
           participant,
           returnAssignee: existingState?.returnAssignee ?? currentAssignee ?? actor,
+          reviewRequest: input.reviewRequest ?? null,
         });
         return {
           patch,
@@ -461,6 +475,7 @@ export function applyIssueExecutionPolicyTransition(input: TransitionInput): Tra
         stage: activeStage,
         participant: currentParticipant,
         returnAssignee: existingState?.returnAssignee ?? currentAssignee ?? actor,
+        reviewRequest: effectiveReviewRequest,
       });
       return {
         patch,
@@ -538,6 +553,7 @@ export function applyIssueExecutionPolicyTransition(input: TransitionInput): Tra
     stage: pendingStage,
     participant,
     returnAssignee,
+    reviewRequest: input.reviewRequest ?? null,
   });
   return {
     patch,

server/src/services/issues.ts

@@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ export interface IssueFilters {
   workspaceId?: string;
   executionWorkspaceId?: string;
   parentId?: string;
+  descendantOf?: string;
   labelId?: string;
   originKind?: string;
   originId?: string;
@@ -1396,6 +1397,24 @@ export function issueService(db: Db) {
             AND ${issueComments.body} ILIKE ${containsPattern} ESCAPE '\\'
         )
       `;
+      if (filters?.descendantOf) {
+        conditions.push(sql<boolean>`
+          ${issues.id} IN (
+            WITH RECURSIVE descendants(id) AS (
+              SELECT ${issues.id}
+              FROM ${issues}
+              WHERE ${issues.companyId} = ${companyId}
+                AND ${issues.parentId} = ${filters.descendantOf}
+              UNION
+              SELECT ${issues.id}
+              FROM ${issues}
+              JOIN descendants ON ${issues.parentId} = descendants.id
+              WHERE ${issues.companyId} = ${companyId}
+            )
+            SELECT id FROM descendants
+          )
+        `);
+      }
       if (filters?.status) {
         const statuses = filters.status.split(",").map((s) => s.trim());
         conditions.push(statuses.length === 1 ? eq(issues.status, statuses[0]) : inArray(issues.status, statuses));