test: preserve the onboarding child brief at delegation (#18266)

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Product E2E journeys check onboarding through the real app.
> - The onboarding story asks a parent agent to delegate a file and
document task.
> - A parent can preserve the goal but omit the exact tool instructions
from its child description.
> - The child can then publish a note instead of the required JSON file
and task document.
> - This pull request asks the parent to copy the full child brief
without changing it.
> - The existing independent checks still decide whether the result
passes.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #18258. Includes merged prerequisite #18270 for the existing
retention scheduling failure found by required CI.

**What happened?**

The scripted onboarding request gave the parent an ordered tool recipe.
It did not require the parent to keep that recipe in the child
description. A delegated child could compute the result but publish a
Markdown note and omit the Paperclip task document.

**Expected behavior**

The child receives the full approved brief. It must publish
`connection-proof.json`, save its Paperclip task document with the
returned file link, and report completion through the current contract.

**Steps to reproduce**

Run the explicit Cloud onboarding journey. Inspect the approved child
description and its published result when the parent summarizes the
request.

**Paperclip version or commit**

This change is based on public master
`b3c2172d417ea6b783e0c796aaed4a91e1f9d381`.

**Deployment mode**

Scripted Product E2E against a live Cloud testing workspace.

## What Changed

- Put the existing ordered instructions in one marked child brief.
- Require the parent to copy that brief verbatim into
`create_task.description`.
- State the exact JSON filename and workspace-relative content reference
for `register_deliverable`.
- State that a Markdown workspace note does not replace the
`write_document` step.
- Document this scripted scope in the Product journey guide.

## Verification

- Existing focused Product journey tests: 227 passed in 10 files.
- Credential-free Product journey discovery passed through the direct
tsx loader.
- Source comparison confirms that all code after the opening reply is
unchanged. The download, calculation, hash, provenance, document,
parent-link, approval and run-limit checks retain their original
behavior.
- No prompt word-matching tests were added. This is an instruction-only
change.
- `pnpm build`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm
test:e2e:runner:typecheck` passed.
- Full support Vitest check: 5,042 passed, 2 skipped, 2 failed. Both
failures occur during embedded PostgreSQL startup in the controller
database lifecycle fixtures. The log includes a missing bundled
`libzstd.1.dylib`. The separate Node support checks passed all 137
tests.
- `pnpm test:run` was attempted. It reached the general server suite and
repeated embedded PostgreSQL startup failures. I stopped only this owned
local test process group. The full local test command is incomplete.
Required Linux CI remains the merge gate.
- The first harness typecheck ran before workspace build outputs existed
and reported missing workspace modules. It passed after the full build.
The earlier failure remains recorded.
- The initial CLI discovery wrapper hit a local tsx IPC permission
error. The direct loader passed with the same source and arguments.
- The original required CI run found an existing skill-retention page
delay. Its unchanged test passed once against a dedicated local
PostgreSQL fixture. Separate PR #18270 added a deterministic regression
and fixed the scheduler. After that PR merged, this branch received one
normal merge from master. Its diff remains two fixture files. The
original failed CI run remains preserved.
- After the branch refresh, all 70 onboarding first-task tests and 7
retention/deadline controls passed. Harness typecheck passed. Fresh
required CI and review passed on head
`608e266c6567c19981fd3f8a07305c785346753b`.
- The refreshed CI run passed the retention shard but failed one
unchanged Antigravity authentication fixture. The same Runner lane
passed on the prior fixture head and the merged prerequisite. The exact
test passed once locally. Source review identified a possible
stdout/stderr ordering race, but the failed run did not retain its exact
error subtype. The one approved retry of the failed CI job and its
verification aggregate passed on unchanged source. The original failure
remains preserved. This proves recovery, not its cause.
- The live Cloud journey has not been rerun with this source. Historical
failed attempts retain their original results.

## Risks

- An agent can still fail to follow the brief. Existing independent
assertions will reject the wrong file or missing task document.
- The fixture definition changes. A later live attempt must record this
new harness revision.
- No application, model, effort, budget, cleanup or acceptance rule
changes.

## Model Used

- OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, ultra reasoning effort, with repository tools
and code execution. The parent verified this model ID from current
runtime metadata. The context window size is not exposed.

## 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 searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

tests/runner-e2e/PRODUCT-JOURNEYS.md

@@ -40,11 +40,15 @@ journey without another setup. A recipe reports `startingState: recipe`;
 reusing successful onboarding reports `onboarding`. Preconfigured state is never
 counted as onboarding coverage.
 
-The scripted onboarding request orders the child's work: create the files,
-publish the proof file, save its document with the returned file link, then
-report completion. It explains the native completion contract: include actual
-verification, omit the optional schema, and use receipt-derived deliverable
-references in evidence and file artifacts. Local input paths are verification
+The scripted onboarding request supplies a self-contained child brief. The
+parent must copy the full marked brief verbatim into `create_task.description`,
+including tool names, parameters, and the encoded input. It orders the child's
+work: create the files, publish `connection-proof.json` with that exact filename
+and workspace-relative content reference, save its Paperclip task document with
+the returned file link, then report completion. A Markdown workspace note does
+not replace the task document. It explains the native completion contract:
+include actual verification, omit the optional schema, and use receipt-derived
+deliverable references in evidence and file artifacts. Local input paths are verification
 details. Correcting rejected tool arguments stays within the same attempt;
 it does not retry the journey. The model still computes the result, publishes
 the file, saves the document, and completes the tasks. Independent download,

tests/runner-e2e/product-journeys/onboarding-first-task.ts

@@ -176,17 +176,23 @@ export async function onboardingFirstTask(input: OnboardingFirstTaskInput): Prom
   // Persist the exact intended child before the opening reply can dispatch any model work.
   await input.own({ kind: "issue", name: title });
   await page.getByRole("radio", { name: option.label }).last().click({ timeout: remaining() });
-  await page.getByTestId("question-other-answer-composer").last().locator('[contenteditable="true"],textarea').first().fill([
-    `I have one task in mind. Propose exactly one child task named "${title}" and wait for my approval before creating it or doing its work.`,
-    "After approval, assign it to yourself and let its own Paperclip execution produce the result. Then verify and link its saved document and downloadable file in this onboarding conversation and complete both tasks.",
-    "The child's approved scope, in this order:",
+  const childBrief = [
+    "Complete this child's approved scope in this order:",
     "1. Decode the following base64 into connection-input.json in its workspace, using actual tools.",
     `Exact input bytes: ${Buffer.from(proof.input).toString("base64")}`,
     '2. Write connection-proof.json containing exactly {"nonce":string,"count":number,"total":number,"sha256":string}. Copy nonce, count the input values, sum them, and compute sha256 of the exact input bytes including the final newline.',
-    "3. Publish connection-proof.json on that child using register_deliverable with workspace-relative contentRef and correct byteSize and SHA-256.",
-    "4. Use write_document to save a connection-proof document on the child including the filename connection-proof.json, input nonce, result, and the file link returned by register_deliverable.",
+    '3. Publish connection-proof.json on this child using register_deliverable with filename "connection-proof.json", workspace-relative contentRef "connection-proof.json", and correct byteSize and SHA-256 for that file.',
+    "4. Use write_document to save a connection-proof document on this child including the filename connection-proof.json, input nonce, result, and the file link returned by register_deliverable. A Markdown workspace note is not a Paperclip task document and does not replace this step.",
     "5. Report completion with paperclip_finish using the current completion contract. Include verification for checks actually run and omit optional schema. Use deliverable:<attachmentId> from register_deliverable in evidence and any file artifacts. Keep local input paths in verification details, not completion evidence or artifacts. Correct rejected arguments using the tool feedback and retry before declaring a blocker.",
     "Do not hire agents, create additional tasks, or access credentials or unrelated files.",
+  ].join("\n");
+  await page.getByTestId("question-other-answer-composer").last().locator('[contenteditable="true"],textarea').first().fill([
+    `I have one task in mind. Propose exactly one child task named "${title}" and wait for my approval before creating it or doing its work.`,
+    "After approval, assign it to yourself and let its own Paperclip execution produce the result. Then verify and link its saved document and downloadable file in this onboarding conversation and complete both tasks.",
+    "When you create the child, copy the entire brief between BEGIN CHILD BRIEF and END CHILD BRIEF VERBATIM into create_task.description. Preserve every step, tool name, parameter instruction, and exact encoded input. Do not summarize or paraphrase it.",
+    "BEGIN CHILD BRIEF",
+    childBrief,
+    "END CHILD BRIEF",
   ].join("\n"), { timeout: remaining() });
   await page.getByRole("button", { name: opening[0]!.payload.submitLabel ?? "Continue", exact: true }).last().click({ timeout: remaining() });