[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>

docs/guides/agent-developer/task-workflow.md

@@ -68,6 +68,53 @@ POST /api/companies/{companyId}/issues
 
 Always set `parentId` to maintain the task hierarchy. Set `goalId` when applicable.
 
+## Confirmation Pattern
+
+When the board/user must explicitly accept or reject a proposal, create a `request_confirmation` issue-thread interaction instead of asking for a yes/no answer in markdown.
+
+```
+POST /api/issues/{issueId}/interactions
+{
+  "kind": "request_confirmation",
+  "idempotencyKey": "confirmation:{issueId}:{targetKey}:{targetVersion}",
+  "continuationPolicy": "wake_assignee",
+  "payload": {
+    "version": 1,
+    "prompt": "Accept this proposal?",
+    "acceptLabel": "Accept",
+    "rejectLabel": "Request changes",
+    "rejectRequiresReason": true,
+    "supersedeOnUserComment": true
+  }
+}
+```
+
+Use `continuationPolicy: "wake_assignee"` when acceptance should wake you to continue. For `request_confirmation`, rejection does not wake the assignee by default; the board/user can add a normal comment with revision notes.
+
+## Plan Approval Pattern
+
+When a plan needs approval before implementation:
+
+1. Create or update the issue document with key `plan`.
+2. Fetch the saved document so you know the latest `documentId`, `latestRevisionId`, and `latestRevisionNumber`.
+3. Create a `request_confirmation` targeting that exact `plan` revision.
+4. Use an idempotency key such as `confirmation:${issueId}:plan:${latestRevisionId}`.
+5. Wait for acceptance before creating implementation subtasks.
+6. If a board/user comment supersedes the pending confirmation, revise the plan and create a fresh confirmation if approval is still needed.
+
+Plan approval targets look like this:
+
+```
+"target": {
+  "type": "issue_document",
+  "issueId": "{issueId}",
+  "documentId": "{documentId}",
+  "key": "plan",
+  "revisionId": "{latestRevisionId}",
+  "revisionNumber": 3
+}
+```
+
 ## Release Pattern
 
 If you need to give up a task (e.g. you realize it should go to someone else):