Create Issue Interaction UI

Create a new issue-thread interaction UI (Developer/maintainer skill)

Developer/maintainer skill. Do NOT install this on production Paperclip agents.

This skill walks a Paperclip contributor through introducing a new issue-thread interaction kind from shared contract to issue-detail wiring, helpers, and docs. It is intentionally a developer/maintainer skill: the audience is a human or coding agent making code changes inside paperclipai/paperclip, not the operational agents that run inside a deployed Paperclip company.

Do NOT install this on production Paperclip agents. This guide is for repository contributors changing Paperclip itself.

When to use

• A new interaction kind is being introduced (compact picker, structured rating, in-thread approval card, etc.).
• An existing interaction needs a parallel variant with a distinct payload shape, validation, or resolution outcome (and ask_user_questions is the wrong fit because option count, target binding, or result shape differs).
• A reviewer asks for "the same audit, staleness, supersede, and continuation semantics as the other interactions" on a new card.

When NOT to use

• Adding fields to an existing interaction kind that does not need a new payload schema. Patch the existing validators/UI in place instead.
• Changing how Paperclip agents call interactions. Update skills/paperclip or references/api-reference.md; that is agent guidance, not card work.
• Building a non-thread UI (issue detail sidebar, project board widget, etc.). Those have their own component conventions.

Mental model

Every issue-thread interaction has four moving parts:

The four existing kinds are the canonical prior art. Pick the closest one and copy its plumbing rather than inventing parallel mechanics:

• request_confirmation — single yes/no bound to a target with stale/supersede.
• request_checkbox_confirmation — bounded multi-select against an immutable option set.
• ask_user_questions — small typed form, no target binding.
• suggest_tasks — proposes tasks the board can accept individually.

If your new card needs target binding and a yes/no-style resolution, model it after the two request_* kinds. If it is a structured form, model it after ask_user_questions. If it produces creatable child entities, model it after suggest_tasks.

The canonical worked example

The current best end-to-end reference is the checkbox confirmation rollout (merged in 4d5322c82, GitHub PR #7649). Read that diff before starting:

git show --stat 4d5322c82

The plan it implemented is preserved as an issue document on PAP-10415. Use it as the template for your own plan document if you are running this work through Paperclip itself.

Order of operations

Do the shared contract first. It is the smallest correct change you can land even before UI is final, and every later layer reads its types and validators.

1. Shared contract (smallest, lands first)

Touch:

• packages/shared/src/constants.ts — add the kind string to ISSUE_THREAD_INTERACTION_KINDS and any size constant (mirror REQUEST_CHECKBOX_CONFIRMATION_OPTION_LIMIT = 200).
• packages/shared/src/types/issue.ts — add Option, Payload, Result, and Interaction interfaces. Extend the IssueThreadInteraction and payload/result union types at the bottom of the file.
• packages/shared/src/types/index.ts — re-export the new types.
• packages/shared/src/validators/issue.ts — add Zod schemas for payload, result, and the create-input variant. Reuse the existing requestConfirmationTargetSchema when target binding applies.
• packages/shared/src/validators/index.ts — re-export the new schemas.
• packages/shared/src/index.ts — re-export at the package root.
• packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts — extend the table tests for the new payload variant.

Validation invariants that have already been litigated and must hold:

• Option lists are bounded (the checkbox kind uses 200; pick a number the UX can render compactly).
• Option ids are unique within a payload and any default selection must reference known ids.
• Labels and descriptions are length-capped to match existing question options. Do not invent looser caps.
• Target binding uses the shared RequestConfirmationTarget schema so stale expiration runs through one code path.

2. Server service and routes

Touch:

• server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.ts — add the kind to:
  • the supported-kinds list (SUPPORTED_KINDS near the top),
  • mapInteractionRow (the switch (row.kind) over payload/result parsers),
  • create-input validation (switch (data.kind)),
  • the accept/reject/respond/stale-expiration branches,
  • the activity-log payload and the continuation wake payload.
• server/src/routes/issues.ts — extend any kind-specific branches (notably the response-shape branch around line 6096 in the checkbox PR).
• server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts — cover create, accept-with-result, reject-with-reason, stale-target expiration, supersede-on-user-comment, idempotency conflict, and wake payload shape.
• server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts — cover create + respond/accept/reject HTTP behavior, company scoping, and authorization.

Server invariants:

• Board-only resolution. Agent-authored accept/reject must be rejected with the existing 403 path; do not add a per-kind bypass.
• Company scoping. Reads, writes, expiration, and supersede must all filter by companyId. Never trust an issueId alone.
• Stale target. If target was specified at create time and a newer revision lands, the interaction expires with outcome: "stale_target". Do not write bespoke staleness — call the same helper the other request_* kinds use.
• Supersede on user comment. Default supersedeOnUserComment: true unless the payload schema documents otherwise.
• Idempotency. The deterministic idempotencyKey shape from the existing kinds (<kind>:<issueId>:<decisionKey>:<revisionId>) must be honored; duplicate POSTs must return the existing card, not stack.
• Continuation policy. Support none, wake_assignee, and wake_assignee_on_accept. Pick a default that matches whether the asker is blocked waiting for the answer (wake_assignee) or only cares about acceptance (wake_assignee_on_accept).