PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-07 16:11:46 +02:00

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	862a5758ba	fix(agents): reduce hiring templates to role descriptions (#14985 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - New agents receive role instructions from onboarding, the hiring skill, or a team package. > - These sources repeat harness procedures and impose generic work policies. > - They can crowd out the task and the harness instructions. > - This pull request reduces those sources to short role descriptions. > - It preserves configuration, skills, authentication, reporting lines, and approval controls. > - The benefit is less repeated instruction text with explicit coverage for the default hiring path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #3307. The CEO template can impose a fixed delegation route instead of letting the agent choose how to fulfill the request. This change removes that route. It does not implement autonomous goal selection. Related work: #14920 preserves stock Codex base instructions. #14948 reduces the generic manual and shared runtime prompts. #14961 improves native completion-tool descriptions. This PR is separate from those changes. ## What Changed - Select only the short CEO `AGENTS.md` for new default CEO bundles. Keep the three former companion files as compatibility assets. - Reduce the first-agent chief-of-staff prompt and coder, QA, UX, and security role examples. - Reduce seven bundled team role bodies. Preserve their role, reporting, and skill metadata. Regenerate the catalog. - Make hiring examples optional. Replace the long generic role manual with short role drafting guidance. Preserve explicit requester instructions. - Add configuration and import coverage for native and legacy managed bundles, custom instructions, first-agent rendering, and catalog contents. - Add an explicit-only hiring eval that starts from the production CEO default and checks one coder hire, independently computed JSON output, saved instructions, and worker reuse. - Include the full prompt comparison and a separate three-request drafting simulation. Neither is a live provider comparison. Prompt differences: [before and after](doc/plans/2026-10-02-hiring-template-prompt-diff.md). The CEO default falls from 1,897 to 20 words. The coder example falls from 652 to 18 words. Word counts describe instruction size, not outcome quality or billing. ## Verification - PASS: 99 focused server tests and eight shipped-catalog tests. - PASS: catalog generation and validation for four shipped teams. - PASS: hiring skill validation. - PASS: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - PASS: `pnpm build`. - INCOMPLETE: the full local `pnpm test:run` was stopped before rebase. Its original log is retained. This is not a completed full-suite pass. The full current-head GitHub CI workflow passed: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37073372419. - PASS: `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` and `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit` (63 files / 843 tests). - PASS: discovery for the two new hiring cells, 50 existing everyday cells, and the full 438-cell catalog. - PASS after rebase: 99 server tests, 11 catalog tests, 62 selected E2E support tests, and the E2E typecheck. - PASS: all current-head PR checks at `57dcee147ed0b2d2e3cc657cd9e50fb16bf9ec25`: 51 successful check runs, two intentional Storybook skips, and successful Snyk status. Fresh Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. - PENDING follow-up: matched live hiring runs on frozen integration refs. No live outcome-quality or non-regression result is claimed from the configuration checks or this merge. The new suite has two local native cells: Codex and ACPX Claude. It expects five provider turns per cell. It compares source-derived bundles, so the historical long templates remain admissible. Missing successful source-read receipts make a pair uncomparable. They do not establish a behavior regression or equivalence. ## Risks - New default roles have fewer prescribed procedures. Live checks must determine whether a removed instruction was needed for an outcome. - Existing custom and saved bundles keep their contents. The retained companion assets avoid a source-file compatibility break. - Specialized Summarizer, Reflection Coach, and Wiki Maintainer prompts remain unchanged. Their product contracts need separate review. - The generic non-CEO fallback reduction is in #14948. This PR alone does not provide its eight-word fallback. - Configuration tests and drafting simulations do not establish live outcome quality. QA, UX, security, and chief-of-staff hiring behavior remain outside the new two-cell comparison. > 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, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, code editing, shell tools, and delegated verification. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment model ID or context-window size. ## 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>	2026-10-02 17:56:42 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	018993140f	feat: let agents name prompt-only tasks (#14761 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Users create tasks with a title and a description. > - A required title adds work when the prompt already explains the request. > - An agent can name the task once it reads that request. > - This pull request accepts prompt-only tasks and starts them with a short prompt slice. > - A scoped title tool lets the assigned agent replace that slice early without changing execution state. > - A live browser eval checks the real agent call, saved title, audit entry, and preservation of user titles. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: task creation, shared contracts, database, server, runner tools, and board UI. Problem or motivation Users must currently write a title before they can submit a detailed task prompt. The agent has enough context to write a useful title itself. Proposed solution Make the title optional when a description is present. Save the first 120 characters of the normalized prompt as a provisional title. Ask the assigned agent to call `set_task_title` early. Use an atomic provisional-title guard to preserve titles supplied or edited by users. Keep explicit titles supported. Related: #14543 and #14556 concern empty-title submission. This change intentionally enables that submission when a prompt is present, instead of requiring a title. ## What Changed - Add the `titleNeedsGeneration` field with an idempotent migration. Keep existing titles unchanged. - Add `PUT /api/issues/:id/title` and the native and legacy `set_task_title` tool. Enforce company access, active-run ownership, shared, bounded retry receipts across native/HTTP calls, and transactional audit logging. Refresh external-object links after commit, with the same feature gate and plugin detectors as ordinary title edits. - Add early naming guidance in Standard, Ask, and Plan task context. Preserve the description, status, and assignment. - Allow prompt-only root and child task creation, plus draft restoration in the New Task dialog. Keep user titles supported. - Add an opt-in Product E2E suite for prompt-only Standard and Ask tasks, plus an explicit-title control. It checks actual provider calls within the first five tools, persisted state, audit attribution, and the reloaded UI. - Preserve a closed vocabulary of API key maintenance phrases in declared prose while rejecting opaque credential suffixes. Add one bounded naming retry after wording is rejected, without treating the rejected call as a saved title. - Repair the native cleanup receipt check exposed during full verification: accept matching input digests, retain legacy input checks, and reject conflicting receipts. ## Verification - Live Product E2E on `f43478473800e3a46b85c5ee79677efdb15108e7`: 3/3 passed with native Codex `gpt-5.4-mini`, first attempts only, automatic retries disabled. Standard and Ask each saved “Rotate expired API key” on their first tool call, with matching persisted state and a single same-run audit entry. The explicit-title control retained its user title with zero title writes. All three verified the reloaded browser UI. - Campaign: `local-2026-09-30T21-30-11-021Z`. Earlier failed campaigns are retained separately; they exposed credential-prose handling and prompted the naming recovery fix. No failed result was regraded or deleted. - Reproduce with `pnpm test:e2e:runner -- --id task-titles.runner-codex-mini.local.prompt-title-standard --id task-titles.runner-codex-mini.local.prompt-title-ask --id task-titles.runner-codex-mini.local.preserve-explicit-title --max-automatic-retries 0` and an authorized provider key. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the latest commit. The runner build used the configured external eval source tree. - Product E2E unit suite: 61 files, 818 tests passed; E2E typecheck and UI token gates passed. - Title API/native regressions cover prompt-only and explicit child creation, user edits, ownership/company isolation, external reference refresh, cross-surface retry replay, and the 64-key limit without receipt eviction. All passed. Prompt-context coverage: 44 tests passed. - Rust credential regressions: 35 tests passed, including benign maintenance qualifiers and opaque credential rejection in every declared prose field. Catalog/report reconciliation: 28 tests passed. Native recovery: 560 tests passed. - Broad local `pnpm test:run`: 14,555 tests passed in the general server group; two suites failed to initialize embedded PostgreSQL and the existing 40,000-file Git streaming stress test exceeded its 300-second macOS timeout. All three suites then passed in isolation (5 tests passed) without code or timeout changes. The original full local command exited nonzero and is not being represented as a clean full run. - Latest-head GitHub checks are green: 53 passed, 4 skipped, zero failed or pending, including all test shards and the canary packaging dry run. Greptile reviewed the same commit at 5/5, with zero unresolved review threads. ## Risks - The additive database field must reach the server and UI together. The migration uses `IF NOT EXISTS` and defaults existing tasks to a final title. - Title generation depends on the assigned agent running. Tasks without a run keep their provisional title. - Live qualification covers the native Codex path in Standard and Ask modes. API/legacy and Plan behavior have deterministic coverage. - The credential-prose exception validates the entire suffix against a closed maintenance vocabulary. Unknown suffixes, assignments, quoted values, credential prefixes, and diagnostics retain strict checks. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment ID and context window are not exposed in this session. The live eval uses the native Codex `gpt-5.4-mini` profile. ## 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>	2026-09-30 16:48:24 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3c561642b4	fix(chat): resolve approvals and preserve unanswered questions (#14613 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents ask for decisions and optional details through cards in chat. > - A clear approval in a message can leave the matching card pending. > - An unanswered question can also block an unrelated later reply. > - Decisions need a saved source message, while optional questions need to remain answerable in history. > - This pull request records conversational decisions and lets users move on from questions and answer them later. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Native Claude and Codex could act on approval in chat while the original approval card stayed pending. Pending question forms stayed above the composer, were absent from history, and could suppress later chat replies. A late native question answer could wait for a finished run to reconnect. Expected behavior The active agent records a clear approval or refusal against the exact card and user message. Ambiguous replies do not grant consent. Users can send another message without answering a question. The question remains pending in history and can be reopened and answered later. The saved answer reaches the agent. Steps to reproduce 1. Ask an agent to propose work with a confirmation card, then approve it in chat. 2. Check that the original card records that approval before work starts. 3. Ask an interactive question, send an unrelated message, and reload. 4. Open the unanswered question from history and submit an answer. Related work: #14408 added completion delivery. #14607 tests completion reporting turns. Neither records conversational answers on approval cards. ## What Changed - Add a confirmation endpoint backed by a user comment, with schema validation, OpenAPI discovery, and native Plan-mode access. Ask mode remains read-only. - Check company, active run, actor, current session, message provenance, revision, and resolver policy. Save the decision and audit in one transaction. Retries do not repeat effects. Emit resolution telemetry after commit. - Give fresh and resumed chat turns the actual pending confirmation identities. Teach agents to save clear conversational decisions before acting and to clarify ambiguity. - Keep unanswered Agent Chat questions as compact history entries. A newer user message closes the old form. Question cards never contribute to composer pending counts or navigation, including after dismissing a fresh form. The history card is the sole reminder; clicking it restores that exact form and draft. - Preserve Agent Chat questions when later messages or questions arrive. Historical ordinary inputs no longer gate later chat replies. Current-run requests, task execution, and governed approvals keep their gates. Remove the special acknowledgement-publication proof helpers that this rule replaces. - Route answers to finished native runs through durable fresh-wake delivery, with existing idempotency and source-question context. Settle late replies against contiguous completed conversation turns and freeze their history replay; failed, unhandled, and newly arriving messages remain actionable. - Add real-component Storybook scenarios, database and UI regressions, and a three-turn native Claude/Codex E2E case. Capture distinct, UI-ready screenshots and report the individual assertions. ## Verification - Focused decision/publication/UI regressions after merging master: 288 passed; subsequent UI draft, failed-send, and conversation checks: 199 passed. - Native question and durable delivery regressions: 106 passed, including all four terminal run states and exactly-once late delivery. Seven targeted regressions fail against the original implementation and pass with the fix. - Latest conversation/decision/native-delivery regressions after the master merge: 121 passed. Covers completed progress, missing or failed intervening turns, new messages during a late reply, stale sessions, and frozen retry/replay boundaries. Four new assertions fail before the ordering fix. - E2E support suite after the master merge: 792 passed. Negative controls reject expired cards, wrong questions/answers, stale or missing replies, unrelated clarification forms, and unexpected tasks. - The embedded-browser walkthrough caught one additional defect: dismissing a fresh question still showed a composer badge. Both Cancel and close-button regressions failed before the fix. The fix at `65f2ade12` passes 170 chat-thread tests and 792 E2E support tests. After merging master, 232 chat-thread/confirmation tests, server/UI typechecks, and token gates pass. The preview and two-provider live E2E pass at `e5512a206`; Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads at that commit. All 55 checks are now successful at `e5512a206` (four conditional checks skipped), including the aggregate verification gate and clean-install canary test. The first attempt was interrupted by simultaneous CI worker shutdowns; one failed-job rerun passed without code changes. - [Published Storybook](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/storybook/branches/codex~2Fchat-approval-resolution/?path=/story/chat-comments-agent-chat-unanswered-questions--moved-on): nine real-component scenarios. Manually exercised move on, reopen, preserve draft, answer later, answer one of multiple questions, and a custom mobile answer in the embedded browser. Retested fresh Cancel and close-button dismissal in the updated build, then reopened and submitted the preserved Green selection and inspected its answered receipt. Static preview has no live model/backend; its callbacks are fixture responses. - [First live campaign](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36714504406-1/) reproduced the late-answer completion-state defect on both providers despite correct saved answers and acknowledgements. It also exposed a valid imperative clarification rejected by the old oracle. Both issues are fixed with regression controls; this failing run is retained as evidence. - [Four-cell qualification](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36717804064-1/) passed 4/4 at `2bf8a1009`: unanswered-question return and ambiguous confirmation, each on native Claude and Codex. Inspected saved state, source-message decisions, visible cards, and agent replies. Both late-answer chats settled to waiting; no unrequested tasks were created. [Final branch rerun](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36719666238-1/) passed 2/2 at `142630720`: the same unanswered-question journey after merging master, plus an additional screenshot and browser assertion for the actual late-answer acknowledgement. - [Composer-reminder E2E](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36727006818-1/) passed 2/2 at `5b62c52d9`: native Claude and Codex, three turns each, with explicit no-badge assertions before and after reload. Inspected saved pending/answered state, both screenshots with a clear composer, and actual Blue acknowledgements; all five behavioral matchers passed per provider and neither created tasks. Cost coverage is partial; this is bounded workflow qualification. - [Fresh-dismissal E2E](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36742773318-1/) passed 2/2 at `e5512a206`: native Claude and Codex, including fresh Cancel, clear composer, reopen, unrelated message, reload, late Blue answer, and actual agent acknowledgement. All five behavioral matchers pass per provider. Inspected the fresh-dismissal screenshots and saved pending/answered identity; neither created tasks. Cost coverage is partial (4/6 runs). - Prior evidence remains available in [the earlier campaign](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36642252725-1/). Its early loading screenshot and overwritten final capture prompted the UI-ready, distinct screenshot fixes. ## Risks - The model interprets intent. The server verifies permission and provenance; it does not infer consent from text. Ambiguous and unrelated replies are not approvals. - Historical questions can accumulate. They remain visible, pending, and answerable; no automatic answer or expiry is invented. - The change to completion gates is scoped to Agent Chat and ordinary historical inputs. Current-turn and governed approvals retain their existing controls. - Live qualification is limited to the selected stories. Broader native onboarding finalization remains separate work. - No database migration. Telemetry adds no fields or values; the contract and README document the commit boundary. Privacy review was requested on the PR. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser-test orchestration. The exact model ID and context-window size are not exposed to this session. ## 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>	2026-09-30 11:46:46 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d30b03bd8c	test: add persistent E2E coverage for human blocker decisions (#14707 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work for AI agents. > - Agents use the coordination skill when work needs human authority or a scope decision. > - PR #14188 replaced automatic manager escalation with direct blocker handling. > - This behavior needs real browser, server, database, and provider tests. > - The test must verify saved human input, task ownership, and resumed work. > - This pull request adds six reusable Product E2E cases and improves the skill examples that they exercise. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #14188. The merged change needs repeatable behavior coverage. The new suite tests missing administrator access, missing hiring permission, and requester scope questions. Searches found no duplicate blocker-guidance suite. This extends the existing eval system described in ROADMAP.md. ## What Changed - Add the explicit-only `blocker-guidance` Product E2E suite. It has three local scenarios on legacy Codex and legacy Claude. - Use the production UI and public APIs to create work, save a human-only question or confirmation, answer it after reload, and resume the same task. - Check requester identity, ownership history, manager activity, hiring, saved answers, and completion. Keep direct text input as a separate UX result. - Save pending and final screenshots, API checkpoints, skill hashes, provider evidence, and billing data through the existing report pipeline. - Isolate the Claude fixture home. Verify the served skill bytes before dispatch so an old installed skill cannot silently replace the evaluated skill. - Improve the coordination and hiring skill examples. Include the human-only policy, requester address, wake behavior, and handling of authorized scope changes. - Grader v5 requires the exact approved public welcome note as a new worker comment. Browser input checks reject unwritable scope cards before clicking, and confirmation direction must be saved in the resolution before the worker wakes. - Add grader calibration and browser-input tests. Update the fixture guide and generated capability inventories. ## Verification - `pnpm build`: passed after rebasing onto current master. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit`: 742 tests passed. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:browser-support blocker-input.spec.ts`: 10 tests passed. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner -- --list --suite blocker-guidance`: six cells found. - Capability inventory and generated-contract checks: passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/hiring-operational-examples.test.ts`: four tests passed after synchronizing the generated API reference and section anchor. - Full general and serialized test suites: passed in CI on `6652cee74517039676bad6a720f213625d265acd`. The redundant local `pnpm test:run` was interrupted after complete CI coverage passed; it is not claimed as a completed local full-suite run. - Final GitHub checks: 54 passed, two optional Storybook checks skipped. The runtime-exposure startup test hit a 10-second readiness timeout once, passed a targeted local reproduction, and its CI shard passed the single retry without code changes. - Current-head Greptile: 5/5, clean check, zero unresolved threads. - Historical live measurement on September 29 at `4edc77ae2b95b10dd61426ce3f042bac00527ad9`: three independent six-cell runs scored 5/6, 6/6, and 6/6. Claude Sonnet 4.6 passed 9/9. Codex `gpt-5.6-sol` passed 8/9. These runs predate this rebase. - Version 5 changes the scope answer to an exact approved publication draft. The historical runs do not qualify that new requirement; the two-provider scope pilot at `49a1f4eab369948b9e3b34a6ce436489e875e4ec` passed Codex and failed Claude. Claude posted the correct salary-free sentence but omitted its required reference line from that comment, placing the reference in a separate completion message. The `public-welcome-note` check correctly failed. An earlier Claude database-startup failure was retained separately; its fresh-instance retry reached the model. This pilot is not a six-cell qualification. - The failed Codex scope case omitted `addresseeUserId`. The strict routing check remains. All 18 attempts had clean evidence manifests and passed cleanup. - To repeat with provider credentials: `pnpm test:e2e:runner -- --suite blocker-guidance --max-parallel 1`. This is a paid, opt-in suite and is excluded from `--all`. ## Risks - The live suite measures variable model behavior. The retained 17/18 historical result and the current 1/2 scope pilot are not all-pass qualifications. These paid cases are opt-in; their observed model failures remain visible independently of deterministic CI checks. - A separate generic task-replacement diagnostic still exposed a Claude refusal. The ordinary cases use specific business decisions. The diagnostic is not a standalone catalog case in this change. - Earlier measurements included an old installed Claude skill and test defects. Their grades remain retained and are not combined with the three final repetitions. - Skill examples can affect when agents ask for human input. Downstream permission checks still apply. - Native runners, Daytona, agent-requester routing, and real external connection authorization are outside this suite. - Raw provider traces and credentials remain private. No screenshots, raw reports, secrets, workflow changes, or lockfile changes are committed. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The exact deployed variant and context window size are not exposed in this session. The assistant used reasoning, repository edits, tool use, and shell execution. The evaluated models were `gpt-5.6-sol` and `claude-sonnet-4-6`. ## 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>	2026-09-30 07:56:54 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	83076d7e7c	feat: return completed handoffs to Agent Chat (#14408 ) Return completed Agent Chat handoffs through a durable outbox and scope each generated update to its supplied tasks. Add recovery, browser delivery, result access, and calibrated quality coverage. Validated with two consecutive ten-case Claude/Codex campaigns, all CI checks, and a 5/5 review. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-29 10:25:52 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3f4f8b37ba	fix: grade Codex clarification and refusal outcomes from evidence (#14570 ) Grade clarification lists, obsolete unstarted wakes, and refusal cancellation from persisted evidence. Preserve execution and ownership assertions, add boundary regressions, and version the affected eval definitions. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-29 09:40:55 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	24beb00575	feat(runner): add rich ACP transport and durable interaction foundation (#14430 ) Add shared rich ACP transport, durable questions and permissions, verified provider packaging, and bounded activity and plan presentation. Keep Cursor, Copilot, and Pi pending their separate provider qualification. Persist interaction settlement before publication, fence failed writes until fresh recovery, and preserve owned-process cleanup. Incorporate reviewed mainline integration with extended harness coverage. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-29 08:56:21 -05:00
DottaandFry	3ca196b0a6	feat(agents): persist agent files across tasks without revision history (#14420 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - An agent needs personal files across tasks and sessions. > - AGENTS.md is one file in that directory. Supporting files need the same persistence. > - The Instructions Editor and agent runs must share one current directory. > - Concurrent runs should apply only the files they change. The last sync of the same file wins. > - This pull request uses existing file transport and removes temporary copies after sync. > - Old instruction-only sessions keep their restore contract. New saves do not create revision history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #14325. This replaces its revision-oriented design with persistent agent files. Keep #14325 unmerged. Transport prerequisite #14416 merged first at `d172197117a14b80a1eb2d2835a0e7cce2679656`. This PR now targets master and remains below 100 changed files. Related work: #4513 and #8798 cover instruction tooling. This change handles run synchronization, cross-task personal files, browser editing, and old-session restoration. ## What Changed - Keep one current directory per company and agent. Point AGENT_HOME at a temporary working copy for each active run. Keep task files and provider HOME separate. - Restore text, binary files, and nested folders through workspace transport. Exclude remote agent files from task Git snapshots with a self-ignoring file inside the reserved runtime directory; never write through repository-controlled Git metadata. - Collect after the provider and child processes have stopped. Keep resumable conversation state. - Apply changed and deleted files under the agent lock. The last sync wins for the same file. Unrelated concurrent changes survive. - Remove temporary copies after successful sync, rejected sync, and staging failure. Register ownership before copying so restart recovery can remove interrupted preparation. Retry transient synchronization up to three times. Preserve the original remote lease reference until deletion succeeds; restart cleanup never acquires a replacement sandbox. Do not create captured directories or a conflict-review queue for new runs. - Keep browser editing, stale-draft protection, and streaming binary downloads. Keep the instruction entry and text editor limited to 1 MiB. - Keep historical agent-folder sync failures on their affected runs instead of repeating them above current saved instructions. Preserve legacy candidate review and current browser-save errors. Avoid duplicate quota warnings while retaining separate sync failures when they describe a different problem. - Require target-scoped caller grants for peer instruction access, while preserving self edits, responsible-user checks, and protected-change consent. - Treat full storage as a nonblocking run warning, never an agent pause or run-admission failure. Restore already-over-quota saved folders so ordinary agent cleanup can recover; warn on each run until cleanup. The run detail view shows the warning. - Allow 256 MiB per file, 2 GiB per directory, and 100,000 entries. Hash large files as streams. Check editor-save quotas with metadata instead of hashing unrelated files. - Preserve old native inputs, instruction-only copies, paths, digests, and pending legacy candidates. Adopt old revision heads once. New writes do not append history rows. - Add idempotent migration 0287 and verify upgrades from the preview tables and receipts. - Add nine interactive stories under Agents / Persistent files, including automatic incoming edits, stale browser drafts, and storage-limit diagnostics. ## Verification - Merge candidate: `4f5390107ec6ffd80a76d1d2e85530e66f21d079`, after merging current master and the landed transport prerequisite. Integration required no manual conflict resolution; the feature remains 99 changed files. Full workspace typecheck, production build, token gates, and 715 focused tests passed on this merge candidate. Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. All 55 checks passed, with four conditional skips, including the build, typecheck, browser E2E, and canary dry run. A single retry recovered four jobs interrupted by runner shutdowns; no source changes were required. - Historical-warning UI fix: all 6,834 UI tests across 640 files passed, including regression coverage for three old failures, legacy preserved edits, and warnings scoped to the affected run. Full workspace typecheck, production build, Storybook build, and token gates passed. Browser-verified Storybook playtests passed for Historical Failures After Successful Save, Storage Limit, and Full Storage Run Warning. - Review follow-ups at `4e20c9fb2`: all 18 focused tests passed, including external Git directories, linked worktrees, symlinks, hardlinks, and distinct I/O failures alongside storage warnings. Server and UI typechecks, token gates, and the production build passed. - Storage warning regressions at `0724f3012`: all 33 directory tests and all five heartbeat-list tests passed, with no skips in their successful runs. They cover repeated runs while full, an already-over-quota saved folder, cleanup, warnings retained after unrelated save failures, and bounded warnings in large result JSON. Server typecheck passed after the final warning fixes. - Full workspace typecheck, production build, and token gates passed during this follow-up. Product E2E harness: 631 tests passed across 52 files; harness typecheck passed. Earlier native session/context and directory/legacy collection suites passed 537 tests; Runner unit/transport suites passed 329 tests. - Real E2E at `0724f3012` (before this follow-up): legacy local Codex and native Daytona Codex each passed six tasks, one server restart, seven independent assertions, and cleanup verification. Both prove browser-to-agent edits, agent-to-browser edits, nested/binary restoration, per-file last-sync-wins, a successful run after an oversized save rejection, and cleanup clearing the warning. - Native local Codex also passed the six-task quota flow before the final warning-retention fixes. That pass began at `918d1ed02` while the bounded-result warning fix was being edited, so it is not claimed as exact-final-head evidence. Its final-head rerun failed during embedded PostgreSQL bootstrap before any provider run: the macOS host had 87,365 of 87,381 SysV semaphores occupied. No unrelated services or kernel limits were changed. - The final-source report intentionally records 2/3 cells passed, preserving the blocked native-local attempt: `tests/runner-e2e/results/agent-files-quota-final-20260928-report/`. Earlier failed attempts and provenance notes remain under `tests/runner-e2e/results/agent-files-quota-final-20260928-input/` and the original campaign directories. - Daytona used immutable image `ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip-daytona-runner@sha256:5643f0d801417cae3581833a1a3bc6715b325e028602738d2652c44cac5dc6bf` and its exact Linux runner binary. Controller source is `0724f3012`; image source is recorded separately. - Legacy-session compatibility and all three ACP Stop/resume browser regressions passed on the prior validated feature head `169fab46d5af21caa2269b4c1b29b69c933a6951`. They assert the same provider session is retained and interrupted writes are not replayed. Migration upgrade tests also passed earlier. - Nine interactive stories are under Agents / Persistent files, including Full Storage Run Warning. Its playtest and visual browser inspection passed; the warning states that runs continue and the editor remains available. - Prior-head checks on `4e20c9fb2`: 55 passed, two conditional jobs skipped, no failures or pending checks. All eight browser E2E shards and their aggregate passed. Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 with no findings; all review threads are resolved, the security scan passed, and GitHub reports no merge conflicts. - The broad local follow-up test run was interrupted after host semaphore exhaustion affected isolated PostgreSQL instances. It also encountered the existing macOS long-path fixture failure and two timeout failures. This is not a claim that the full local suite passed. Logs are retained; focused storage/warning tests passed. ## Risks - A later sync can overwrite an earlier edit to the same file, including a saved browser edit. There is no text merge or retained version. This is the intended last-sync-wins policy. - A save that exceeds a storage limit is rejected and its temporary copy is discarded. The run itself continues normally, and later runs restore the last saved files with a warning until cleanup. Transient sync failures get bounded retries. An I/O failure partway through a sync can leave some files updated; a failed receipt does not claim whole-folder success. - Larger folders increase copy time, network traffic, and temporary disk usage. Active runs still need working copies. Terminal runs do not accumulate archives. Operators must provision disk for agents and configured concurrency; these limits are not company-wide quotas. - A restored old native session remains instruction-only until a fresh session starts. Its original conflict fence and existing pending candidates remain compatible. - Provider processes close at the collection boundary. Conversation resume remains available, but warm process reuse is lost. - Backups must include the instance filesystem and database. External bundles keep their existing behavior until explicitly moved to managed storage. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The session does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. Reasoning, code execution, and browser tools assisted this change. Real provider E2E uses `gpt-5.6-sol`. ## 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: Fry (Paperclip) <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-29 08:25:56 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	992f720262	fix: make runner task context ownership explicit (#13753 ) <!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100). --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task descriptions, comments, continuation data, skills, and execution rules enter several agent adapters. > - The same source can be rendered by more than one automatic input carrier. > - Failed resumes can also rebuild input from stale or compact context. > - This pull request gives each Paperclip-owned source one delivery owner and preserves the required transport boundaries. > - It adds deterministic adapter, interaction, runner, and browser tests for these boundaries. > - The benefit is more predictable context delivery with explicit evidence for later live qualification. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #13144 removes a duplicate environment payload and bounds wake lists. Related: #11360 addresses Hermes resume behavior. This pull request preserves compatible active-session formats while repairing context ownership and stale question creation. What happened? Task descriptions and comments could enter more than one automatic context block. Native transports could wrap a complete model input in a second task envelope. Some legacy and gateway adapters could omit the owned assignment on ordinary tasks or rebuild a failed resume with stale compact context. A continuation could also request a question after newer human comments had arrived. Expected behavior Each task or comment source has one automatic model-facing owner. Distinct comment IDs and repeated wording remain distinct. Fresh fallback attempts rebuild the required full context. A question request is rejected when newer queued human direction makes it stale. Harness access policy remains owned by execution configuration. Steps to reproduce 1. Build a task with a description and current comments. 2. Capture the actual adapter or runner input. 3. Compare source ownership and task-envelope nesting. 4. Queue a human comment before a continuation requests a question. 5. Trigger a failed resume and inspect the fresh retry input. 6. Run the focused adapter, interaction, runner, and browser checks. ## What Changed - Add shared prompt-section selection at the provider-attempt boundary. - Deliver owned assignment context through native, legacy CLI, ACP, gateway, cloud, Pi, Kimi, Grok, Gemini, OpenCode, Cursor, OpenClaw, and Hermes paths. - Rebuild full or compact context after resume recovery changes the attempt. Add native and Claude ACP tests of actual recovery requests. - Preserve custom templates, loaded instruction files, execution policies, and older active-session formats. - Record continuation source metadata and reject stale question creation under the issue-row lock. - Add explicit Product E2E context-integrity profiles, prerequisite gates, credential-isolation checks, and report fixtures. - Bypass service-worker forwarding for same-origin Vite development modules. A real Chromium test fails with resource exhaustion before the repair and passes after it. Production asset caching keeps its existing policy. - Add browser diagnostics and service-worker module-loading regressions. - Add an explicit zero-retry eval option. The default retry behavior remains unchanged. Each campaign records its effective policy. - Remove the model-facing working-directory sentence from four prompt builders. Existing workspace, sandbox, permission, and custom-template configuration remains unchanged. - Align the everyday workflow assertion with the current 47-entry catalog. Compared with current upstream master, the branch carries the context-ownership implementation and its tests, the explicit context-integrity catalog and evidence harness, and the focused browser regression checks. ## Verification Merge assessment: focused regression evidence supports merge. This is not full completion of the original broad qualification matrix. The maintainer has authorized merge after fresh verification of the master integration. - Current head: `bbd52f82114eabf09bc7b1a7e97d54a5b43bbc00`. This integrates current master `2f585ef26a1814fa209715242d1ca791b63e4c4e`. All 14 conflicts are resolved. Cancellation checks, workspace finalization, native Grok support, and both sets of tests are retained. - Current-head Greptile: 5/5, with no blocking findings. The review names this exact commit. All 59 reported checks are terminal: 55 successful, 4 skipped, zero pending or failing. This includes the full root general and serialized suites, separate runner checks, typecheck, build, canary, browser E2E, Docker, and security checks. The successful legacy security status is included in that total. - After integration: workspace typecheck and full build passed. Separate runner checks passed: 2,160 TypeScript tests (10 skipped), 582 Rust tests, and 39 preparation checks. Other passing checks include 621 Product E2E harness units, 376 focused shared/adapter tests, 160 real-database/API tests, 86 Hermes tests, 18 browser-support checks, and Product E2E typechecking. The complete root suite passed in CI. The duplicate local monolithic root run was stopped after that CI result; it is not counted as a completed local pass. - New native recovery coverage retains full assignment, completion contract, and explicit skill selection after safe replacement, for old and prepared input formats. Full native session test file: 136/136 passed. - New Claude ACP coverage captures actual fresh, resumed, and missing-session fallback requests. It verifies one assignment copy, comment order, identical text under distinct comment IDs, and full fallback context. Full file: 33/33 passed. Both affected TypeScript checks passed. - Existing deterministic tests cover source revisions, approval and trust boundaries, completion validation, custom templates, compatible sessions, standalone driver wrapping, and maintained adapter transport requests. - Provider-free browser support: 17/17 passed after the master merge. Service-worker unit tests: 33/33 passed. The module-overload regression failed before the repair and passed after it in real Chromium. ### Fresh live comparisons The new batch ran exactly four Product E2E attempts. All four passed on the first attempt; no retries. Each has six terminal matchers plus the existing browser lifecycle and invariant checks. \| Exact case ID \| Control \| Candidate \| \|---\|---\|---\| \| `core-compatibility.runner-codex.local.plan-revise-accept` \| Passed \| Passed \| \| `local-session-integrity.runner-acpx-claude.local.structured-question-restart-resume` \| Passed \| Passed \| The plan case checks a revised canonical plan and revision-bound approval before completion. The question case restarts the server before submitting the answer, then verifies the continuation completes. Control source is `dfa4e1bda8d50a1a01746603251a9128dbe9d0d6`. Candidate source is `79fcdb5dece501d28064ea9da306603881b46f0c`. They use identical frozen definitions and provider versions: Codex `0.156.0` with `gpt-5.6-sol`; ACPX `0.13.1` / Claude ACP `0.73.0` with `claude-sonnet-5`. The September 24 head added master browser recovery and test-only changes. The September 28 head also integrates newer master changes, including cancellation, workspace finalization, and native Grok. These are frozen-source live results, not exact-head live runs. The candidate received one description copy where the control initially received three. The submitted initial plan envelopes were 7,969 versus 19,097 characters. Question envelopes were 7,592 versus 18,919. These are structural measurements, not whole-provider token or dollar savings. ### Earlier evidence and failed attempts - The preceding fresh batch has four effective passing pairs: OpenCode comment continuation and assigned skill, native Codex comment continuation, and native Claude comment continuation. It retains 11 attempts: eight passed and three failed. - Original failures remain recorded: missing local PostgreSQL library links before task creation; host-sleep cleanup after task/page checks passed; and a Claude control session-open rejection before a model turn. Setup was repaired identically on both worktrees. The permitted unchanged infrastructure retries passed. The underlying Claude provider startup error was not retained and remains unknown. - Older R2 retains 17 passes and one failure across 18 attempts, including eight both-pass native/legacy Codex/Claude pairs. Its OpenCode blank-page failure led to the service-worker repair. R2 is historical evidence: master changed the native fixed prompt and removed duplicate wake environment data afterward. - The September 24 CI run initially failed one unrelated preview readiness test (`ECONNREFUSED` on its local fixture). Its test and production code match master. Isolated local verification passed 28 tests, 3 skipped. One unchanged CI retry passed the full shard: 831 passed, 1 skipped, including all 31 preview-exposure tests. The aggregate CI gate passed afterward. The precise startup cause remains unknown; a port race is a hypothesis, not a proved cause. ### Limits The original wider profile/workflow matrix, repeated trials, and remote Daytona qualification are incomplete. These results support a focused merge recommendation, not statistical equivalence or universal harness qualification. Some usage receipts are missing in both variants, so no token or dollar savings are claimed. The $500 ceiling was preserved using conservative allowances; failed attempts and unknown charges remain in the ledger. Reproduce the focused additions with `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/acp.test.ts` and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner exec vitest run src/native-session-runtime.test.ts`. Full checks use `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, `pnpm build`, and the separate runner checks. Paid evals require the frozen definitions, profiles, and credentials; do not use `--all` as a substitute for the selected cases. ## Risks - Context placement changes can affect model behavior. Deterministic checks cover the selected paths, but live qualification remains incomplete. - The stale-question guard can reject a request when queued human comments arrived during the run. This is intended. - New stored inputs and model envelopes retain compatibility readers for older active sessions. - Custom templates may intentionally repeat content. - Removing a model-facing working-directory sentence does not change filesystem, command, sandbox, or permission configuration. - The worker bypass applies only to same-origin development module paths. Cache-policy tests preserve private-response handling and production asset caching. Mounted HTTP fixture changes remain test-only. - This PR does not claim measured token savings or statistical equivalence across every harness. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, exact model gpt-6-astra, with repository tools and code execution. Bounded supporting work used gpt-5.6-luna and gpt-6-luna. The serving context-window size is not exposed in this task. ## 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 described the issue in-PR using the required issue fields - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run the focused local checks and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect these changes - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [x] All current-head Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups for the current head - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-28 14:49:14 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f1a394bd30	feat(runner): add Grok Build through native ACP (#13882 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and governs their work. > - Its native runner uses structured provider protocols for sessions and tools. > - Grok Build supports ACP over stdio, but the runner did not expose it. > - Native execution requires company-scoped credentials, verified identities, and permission gates. > - This change adds Grok through ACPX for local and Daytona execution. > - Subscription login and explicit API-key execution have separate credential paths. > - Qualification grades real tool outcomes, durable state, and browser workflows. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13845, #13847, #13850, #13878, #13901, #13973, #13977, #13979. Add Grok Build to `paperclip_runner` with `provider: "acpx"`, `acpxAgent: "grok"`, and model `grok-4.7`. Existing legacy Grok agents keep their adapter. Merge the three companion fixes (#13973, #13977, #13979) before treating the integrated Product qualification as deployed behavior. ## What Changed - Synchronize shared, TypeScript, Rust, server, validation, and UI provider contracts. - Run Grok native ACP stdio through ACPX and the authenticated Paperclip MCP bridge. Verify the pinned executable and exact ACP model identity. - Prefer company subscription login. Support an explicit company-secret API key without automatic paid fallback. Fence refresh and copyback to the same account and remove private runtime credentials after containment. - Preserve selected permissions, cancellation, durable session identity, resume, and restart recovery. Keep unsupported steering and goals unavailable. Preserve missing usage and cost as unknown. - Package checksum-verified Grok Build 1.0.13 for Daytona with an immutable, signed image built on EC2. - Add deterministic admission, protocol, permissions, identity, credential, failure, and cleanup checks. Add the maintained 39-case protocol roster and separate subscription/API Product profiles. - Fix live-test findings in reasoning events, reloads, idle-owner retirement, credential-home cleanup, expired-login model discovery, launcher pinning, and rerun evidence selection. - Align control-plane state readers with the transport's 64 MiB bound while retaining identity, ownership, lifecycle, and size rejection checks. - Stabilize two asynchronous CI assertions while retaining actual outcome and filesystem-evidence checks. ## Verification Current integration head `f114948376056fe0b6b34c1496ae8667b59daa63` includes master `3447609d2247e75e55d91493dda91a608364f672` (2026-09-28). Two master advances during verification overlapped the eval catalog; the final merge preserves Grok qualification, completion updates, and bounded API-response reading in all 348 cells. All 77 focused catalog/eval/workflow tests pass. Both native stack layers (#14397) are mergeable, and both exact-head Greptile reviews are 5/5 with successful security scans and no unresolved review threads. All current-head CI is green: 56 successful checks/statuses and four intentional skips ([CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36447097232)). Trunk code-owner requirements remain enforced. The review summary’s non-blocking saved-asset offset classification note concerns code already merged in #14301; those runtime files are identical to master and outside this stack’s diff. Historical live evidence below retains its original source revisions. Earlier integration checkpoint: `24fc9b94ca0afb21ccdc8d26dbb2e4b258ad72cb`. Refreshed against master `0f14d2612`, preserving Grok qualification alongside the new accounting and lifecycle suites. All 124 focused catalog, evidence, and service-worker checks pass. The current base workflow includes the explicitly selected public-install verification lane; follow-up #14024 supplies its verifier script. CI at that earlier checkpoint was green (56 successful checks/statuses, four intentional skips), and the review is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Prior feature CI at `fd73f0a9b1ecdf4094685054028df71739ddc3e1` passed ([run 36148259902](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36148259902)); that is historical evidence, not a current-head result. Paid Product measurements use frozen integrated source `2d939a92b21dcaf5c77c88b54d96784d2ddd0699`, which combines the feature with #13973, #13977, and #13979. That source passed all 52 CI checks and clean 5/5 review. Later master syncs incorporate upstream changes. Their checks remain separate from these pinned live measurements. \| Check \| Result and source-pinned report \| \| --- \| --- \| \| Subscription protocol roster \| [39/39 first attempts; 206 assertions](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-protocol-evals/campaigns/gha-36046839612-1/index.html), runtime `bc6833f7`, evals `92bb4b8c` \| \| API protocol roster \| [39/39 first attempts; 206 assertions](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-protocol-evals/campaigns/gha-35926577007-1/index.html), runtime `4a1061c8`, evals `3213dbec` \| \| Subscription full Product matrix \| [16/16 first attempts; 144 assertions; cleanup passed](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36096908572-1/index.html), source `2d939a92` \| \| Subscription core repetitions \| 18/18: tool use, planning approval, and Stop/resume each passed three times in local and Daytona profiles. The full matrix contains repetition one; [repeat two](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36104551060-1/index.html) and [repeat three](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36108100404-1/index.html) each passed 6/6. Total: 28 unique subscription attempts at `2d939a92`. \| \| API smoke and question continuation \| [4/4 first attempts; cleanup passed](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36147315401-1/index.html), both environments at `2d939a92` \| \| Historical API Product coverage \| [16/16 full matrix](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35875144860-1/index.html) and 18/18 core repetitions at `4a1061c8`; retained as measurements of that revision \| \| Native Daytona proof \| Three subscription and three API MCP/permissions/resume runs passed at `bc6833f7`. Three expired-login admission and fenced refresh checks passed without inference. All test sandboxes were removed. \| \| Inspectable artifacts and UI \| Current-source screenshots verify planning approval, direct Ask completion, question continuation after controller restart, and two downloadable project revisions. The project downloads pass 12 and 18 tests; all 40 independent artifact oracle checks pass. \| \| Provider-free checks \| 116 eval-validator tests, 39 Grok definitions, and 359 enabled/external campaign cells pass. Continuation regressions above 2 MiB and 16 MiB failed before their fixes; 32 focused recovery/ownership/size checks pass. \| The 32 unique current-source Product attempts have no failures, retries, or skipped cells, and all cleanup checks pass. Whole-workflow timing, model identity, image and provider-pack provenance, attempts, and accounting coverage are retained in the canonical reports. The report publisher's conservative `complete=false` flag is preserved; independent audits verify the exact selected source catalog and immutable result rows. Pins: Grok Build `1.0.13 (5e9a58528b76)`, ACPX `0.13.1`, ACP model `grok-4.7`. Linux binary SHA-256: `edf79521581bb5e6b95abef848491a6a742e860da3e237ebe86a280d30dce4c1`. Launcher SHA-256: `f0b698395a3704ed2ffaf84ea19bdb20c36c8a0a70b7c629c7b6ffe144e59e55`. Image: `ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip-daytona-runner@sha256:76b24edfd850219e949418b19e4ceba690e84d51d199ade426e484953329b5e9`. Image build source is `4196a4cd`, recorded separately from application source `2d939a92`; each campaign verifies the image signature and provider pack. Original failed campaigns remain available: [continuation bound](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36057718059), [scheduler/event capture](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36071063537), and [startup cleanup plus EC2 interruption](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36080870743). They retain their original grades. No Docker or Rust builds ran on the developer laptop for these follow-ups. ## Risks Merge packaging follow-up #14024 with this base before public release. The follow-up replaces the private Grok bridge package with a built-in launcher and makes the native binary an explicit sandbox prerequisite. Three separate, reviewed fixes are part of the tested integrated behavior: #13973 serializes task-run admission; #13977 captures complete event evidence; #13979 durably reconciles failed Daytona creation. Each has green CI and clean 5/5 review. Failed-create recovery has 277 plugin tests, 92 SDK tests, host-runtime recovery tests, and a real Daytona lost-deletion-receipt proof. The live proof uses a private file for journal persistence; database durability is covered by host tests. Worker death before delivery of a failure envelope remains outside that recovery mechanism. Subscription fixtures stage an authorized company login; interactive browser sign-in is not qualified. Local Product profiles ran on EC2 Linux. The temporary subscription credential was removed from the protected GitHub environment after all subscription audits, with absence verified. Runtime homes and refresh copyback remain ownership-fenced. Protocol results remain pinned to their original revisions; they are not relabeled as tests of the latest feature commit. New binary/model versions require qualification. Missing token usage and model cost remain unknown; runtime estimates do not establish a full bill. Automatic paid Grok scheduling remains disabled pending separate reviewed enablement. The 64 MiB bound can increase memory use for verbose sessions, and larger files still fail closed. No automatic legacy-agent migration occurs. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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>	2026-09-28 13:54:36 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3447609d22	fix(runner): stream and page large API responses within capture budgets (#14301 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents use governed API tools to inspect task evidence. > - Large API results become saved assets with short previews. > - Reading an asset through the same tool used to create another asset, so the agent could not reach the rest of the evidence. > - The 10 MiB response cap also blocked useful large results. Removing all bounds allowed excessive disk use. > - This pull request streams responses up to 1 GiB and makes saved text readable in bounded pages. It adds durable run budgets and capture admission limits. > - Agents can inspect complete evidence while tool results, memory use, and capture work stay bounded. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A large response became an asset. Reading that asset returned another asset and the same preview. Responses above 10 MiB failed before the agent could read any page. Expected behavior The agent can fetch a large response and read its saved text to EOF. Each page stays bounded. New snapshots have a generous finite limit and a durable run budget. Existing larger assets remain readable through byte ranges. Steps to reproduce 1. Call a GET operation that returns more than 10 MiB of text or JSON. 2. Before the fix, the tool returns `api_transport_failure`. 3. With this change, responses up to 1 GiB become streamed snapshots with artifact references. 4. Read `GET /api/assets/{assetId}/content` with `responseText: {offsetBytes: 0, limitBytes: 8192}`. Follow `nextOffsetBytes` until null. Related work: #14186 added the API fallback tools. #14218 bounded API discovery. ## What Changed - Add authenticated UTF-8 text windows to `call_api`, with byte offsets and total size. Keep each page at or below 24 KiB. - Stream new responses above 24 KiB through private temporary files into company-owned assets. Bound each capture to 1 GiB of decoded bytes. Reject oversized declared lengths before reading and count streamed bytes before writing. - Reserve capture budget in the run record before spilling. Allow 4 GiB per run. Settle successful captures to their actual size. Failed or interrupted captures retain their full 1 GiB reservation. Run restarts do not reset the budget. - Enforce a 20 GiB company snapshot quota with database reservations. Count legacy snapshots and unfinished storage work across runs and processes. Asset deletion frees quota. - Limit large captures to two per company and four per server process. Hold slots through storage upload and temporary-file cleanup. Use a 10-minute download deadline and 30-second connection/idle-read timeouts. - Return explicit size, budget, busy, and timeout errors. Preserve unknown outcomes for mutations whose response cannot be captured. - Read saved assets through authenticated storage ranges, with at most two extra bytes for UTF-8 and EOF handling. Unpaged reads return the existing asset and digest with a bounded preview. Reads create no copies and do not consume capture budget. - Keep existing assets above 1 GiB readable in pages. Use safe integer offsets and PostgreSQL `bigint` asset sizes. - Stream large S3 uploads through ordered multipart requests. Abort failed uploads and remove partial local files. - Revalidate run authority during downloads. Keep company authorization, GET-only text paging, redirect denial, and mutation replay receipts. - Document the separate 10 MiB upload limits. This PR does not raise memory-buffered attachment ingestion limits. Future large video uploads need streamed ingestion and storage quotas. ## Verification - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass after rebasing on master. - Focused API and response tests: 1,761 pass. Cover declared and chunked oversize responses, incorrect Content-Length, exact-limit success, active-stream deadline, cancellation, cleanup, concurrency admission, and mutation outcome handling. - Real HTTP integration: 28 tests pass, including runnerd → PRP → authority → HTTP, a 12 MiB snapshot, final-page/EOF reads, cross-company denial, a persisted 3 GiB sparse asset, and large mutation receipt replay. - The HTTP suite verifies durable run-budget accounting, simultaneous runs competing for company quota, legacy snapshot accounting, deletion refunds, failed-storage reservations, cleaned-failure refunds, metadata-rollback cleanup refunds, preservation after a lost commit acknowledgement, and small/saved reads after capture-budget exhaustion. - A standalone proof streams exactly 1 GiB through the production capture helper, verifies the final bytes, and removes its temporary file. It uses repeated 256 KiB chunks and records a peak process RSS of 191 MiB. - Earlier storage verification covers exact S3 multipart boundaries, cleanup/abort failures, and a 17 MiB transfer through the real AWS SDK to a local HTTP S3 endpoint. No cloud S3 qualification was run for this follow-up. - The local full test run was interrupted for the company-quota changes. A later targeted run hit exhausted macOS shared-memory slots before tests started; two unattached PostgreSQL segments with dead owners were reclaimed before retrying. All 55 current-head checks pass at `aebb80ceeeee77d5a56b67bfffd835f2f846878c`, including the full CI test suite, typecheck, build, browser suites, security scan, and Greptile (5/5). There are no unresolved review threads. The combined rebased test catalog also passes (48 tests). - Earlier paging acceptance passed Daytona and separate staging at `7739879e9`. Those runs predate the streaming and budget changes. ## Risks - The 1 GiB response cap and 10-minute active-download deadline are intentional product limits. Larger live results must use endpoint pagination or a direct file workflow. Existing larger assets remain readable through bounded ranges. - A durable 20 GiB company snapshot quota counts stored runner-api assets and active/orphan reservations across runs and processes. The operator can set PAPERCLIP_RUNNER_API_COMPANY_CAPTURE_MAX_BYTES to a finite value of at least 1 GiB. Deleting snapshots frees capacity; possible orphan storage must be reconciled before releasing its reservation. - A failed capture uses its full reservation. A new large capture needs a full 1 GiB available, even if it later completes at a smaller size. Small reads and existing asset pages remain available. - Concurrency limits apply per server process. The run byte budget is shared through the database. - The `integer` to `bigint` migration rewrites asset metadata and takes an exclusive table lock. File bytes stay in storage. - A live endpoint is fetched once before returning its snapshot. Continue reading the saved artifact for stable pages. Mutations may commit before any size or transport error; inspect state before retrying. - Attachment uploads and native file handoffs still default to 10 MiB. Raising buffered ingestion paths to GiB sizes is separate work. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with code execution and repository tools. The runtime does not expose an exact serving model variant or context-window size. The earlier paging work also used browser testing and subagents. ## 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>	2026-09-28 10:36:32 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	cea8dda472	test: evaluate completion updates after native task handoffs (#13969 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Users can delegate work through onboarding and Agent Chat. > - A completed task does not prove that its result reached the original conversation. > - Existing tests do not isolate completion after the source chat becomes idle. > - This pull request adds four explicit native-runner probes across Claude and Codex. > - The probes preserve the result and reply so we can separate delivery failures from inaccurate answers. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13775. Refs #13813. These evals extend native-runner qualification. They measure completion updates before we choose a product change. ## What Changed - Add the opt-in `completion-updates` suite with two stories for each native provider. - Test completion in the existing onboarding task flow and after an Agent Chat handoff becomes idle. - Gate the chat worker on a brief inside its managed project workspace. Prove the source is idle before releasing the worker. - Check durable task completion, saved output, a subsequent source reply, and rendered access to the result. - Preserve replies, task state, screenshots, run events, and a separate semantic review rubric. - Add grader regression tests and update the documented eval contract. - Preserve the suites added on master and include four completion cases in the 306-cell catalog. Production behavior and prompts are unchanged. ## Verification - Passed all 565 eval support tests across 45 files after merging current master: `node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts`. - Passed eval TypeScript: `node node_modules/typescript/bin/tsc -p tests/runner-e2e/tsconfig.json`. - Confirmed four selected cells: `node cli/node_modules/tsx/dist/cli.mjs tests/runner-e2e/launch.ts --list --suite completion-updates`. - Four-cell behavior campaign on source `ad47cf1da2b1e36f19f4227cfeb53998720b0b5b`: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36072337485. - A screenshot-only follow-up waits for the restored source reply to render after result-link navigation. Its one-cell Claude onboarding verification passed on final head: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36075716141. Corrected report: https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36075716141-1/. The original four-cell onboarding screenshots caught navigation loading; its saved reply evidence remains valid. The follow-up again found stale wording: "That work will run next" was posted 38 seconds after the child was Done. The four-cell campaign keeps its original source and measurements. - Published evidence: https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36072337485-1/. - Suite definition: `afba4d85d6c53d9f64c08b37a2e9cc20481b78f5bd7e2fa012045e2c69444d9d`, version 6. Models: native `gpt-5.6-sol` and `claude-sonnet-5`, local execution, one attempt per cell. All four cleanup checks passed. Onboarding billing coverage is partial; reported zero cost must not be read as a free run. \| Story \| Automated delivery/access \| Separate semantic review \| \| --- \| --- \| --- \| \| Codex onboarding \| Pass \| Pass: accurate completion reply with an accessible result \| \| Claude onboarding \| Pass \| Fail: reply says it will save the note once the task runs, after the note is already saved and the task is Done \| \| Codex idle chat handoff \| Fail \| Worker completed and saved the note; no completion reply during the full observation window \| \| Claude idle chat handoff \| Fail \| Worker completed and saved the note; no completion reply during the full observation window \| Both chat cases positively recorded the source waiting and the worker at the brief gate before release. Both saved outputs include the brief-only start time. The opt-in campaign is red because it exposes current behavior. It is not a required merge gate. The PR does not fix that product behavior. Semantic review is a recorded human/agent assessment of retained evidence; it is not an automated prose-quality judge. - Second campaign: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36071065098. Codex chat reached the idle boundary and completed its task, then received no completion reply during the full window. Claude onboarding again returned a stale handoff answer. Claude chat exceeded the prior 110-second handoff setup budget; this revision raises that bounded setup window to 180 seconds. - Retained baseline: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36069427676. Onboarding passed delivery/access for both providers, but Claude gave a stale handoff answer. Chat cases stopped at fixture problems; they do not establish a completion-delivery failure. This revision fixes the workspace path and competing reference requirements. - On the previous head `4023a2a3c28d45c9eb2c42d452ce99ffba5c7b73`, 54 PR checks passed and two were skipped, including typecheck, tests, and build. Broad checks ran in CI, not locally. That head received Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The unchanged mobile repository-settings browser test passed on one targeted retry after a detached/disabled Save-button timeout. - Merged current master in `9b4491e1f` and resolved the catalog-count conflict. Eval support tests and eval TypeScript pass locally. All individual CI jobs passed on this merge commit, including build, typecheck, server tests, runner checks, and browser shards. The final aggregate check also passed: 54 checks passed and two were skipped. Greptile reviewed this exact commit at 5/5 with no unresolved findings. ## Risks - These explicit probes can expose current product failures. They do not change the default paid test selection. - Mechanical delivery and result access do not establish answer accuracy. The preserved reply still requires semantic review. - A fixture failure before the idle boundary or worker completion cannot establish a completion-update failure. - The handoff setup window lasts three minutes. The worker brief wait is bounded at four minutes. The observation window lasts two minutes after worker completion. It retains later replies without erasing earlier accessible delivery. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 (`gpt-6-astra`), with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and GitHub tool use. The runtime does not expose the context window size. ## 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>	2026-09-28 09:58:14 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	96bf004a79	fix: use persisted state for lifecycle continuation and retry budgets (#13888 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its control plane decides when a task can continue, wait, stop, or complete. > - Legacy continuation could change when an agent changed its wording without changing task state. > - Shared attempt counts also let repair and infrastructure retries affect each other's limits. > - This pull request uses persisted state and separate, bounded allowances for these decisions. > - If automatic repair stops, the task explains what happened and offers a guarded retry. > - Paired tests and real-provider evaluations verify that Stop, approvals, ownership, and spending limits remain authoritative. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: Refs #13761, Refs #11126, Refs #13610. These cover obsolete continuation dispatch and retry storms. Open and closed issues and PRs were searched for related lifecycle, continuation, and retry work. What happened? Legacy continuation depended on English wording and progress heuristics. Repair, failure retry, and productive continuation could consume shared counts. When bounded repair stopped, the task showed a technical recovery message without a clear next action. Expected behavior Persisted disposition and owned execution paths determine the next action. Missing disposition prompts bounded agent repair. Explicit work mode determines planning mode. Narrative changes and raw activity counts cannot replenish allowances. An exhausted repair shows a readable notice. An explicit retry checks current controls and preserves the assigned agent. Steps to reproduce Run `pnpm test:lifecycle-baseline`. The paired probes keep structured state constant while varying completion, planning, blocker, and progress prose. Run the explicit `lifecycle-baseline` and `continuation-accounting` Product E2E suites for real-provider coverage. In Storybook, open Design previews / Recovery notice to inspect the production component's normal, pending, acknowledged, unavailable, failure, and mobile states. ## What Changed - Hide the image attachment button, icon, and drop/paste hint in answer composers. Image paste and drop support remains available. - Merge current master and retain both browser regression sets. Use a production-stamped service worker in the offline recovery browser fixture. - Share one state-based legacy continuation decision across immediate, delayed, and recovered dispatch. Bind bounded repairs to their source run and episode. - Remove title and description wording from work-mode authority. Agents can still write requested plans in execution mode. - Persist separate failure-retry and productive-continuation counters. Disposition repair and resource waits cannot consume or reset those allowances. - Validate delayed repair identity, then recheck current gates before provider dispatch. Fence native startup cancellation. - Show Agent needs attention, a plain-language explanation, Retry agent, and expandable details in both task interfaces. Report request progress, acknowledgement, and errors inline. - Store typed recovery notice metadata. Recognize older active notices only through exact stored action and run IDs. Notice text never grants retry authority. - Use the existing recovery-action endpoint for retry. Recheck current action, status, owner, agent availability, dependencies, active runs, pending questions and confirmations, approvals, pause controls, and budget. Duplicate requests do not wake twice. - Add component, page, route, database, contract, and Storybook coverage. Keep the scenario inventory and executable evals here. Historical reports and snapshots live in the [commit-pinned paperclip-evals archive](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/blob/ce3e5afcd4a1184650f586a2b5b8be5874c66c8b/experiments/2026-09-lifecycle-authority/README.md). - Preserve unsaved project fields while the same project URL changes to its canonical alias. Do not reuse data across projects or companies. This separate fix addresses the repeated repository-editor browser failure without changing the browser test. - Keep the development service worker from intercepting Vite module reloads. Update the connection-intent browser fixture to record progress and completion through the agent API. ## Verification Merge preparation on September 25, commit `c1e8e4b7ddd9fbc4913ed55ce21b8e12906c2f97`: - Merged master `bd2030932` and resolved the browser test-list conflict by keeping both sets of regressions. - Deterministic lifecycle baseline: 1,090/1,090 assertions passed; no failures, skips, or missing selected evidence. Unit 423, runner 184, database integration 397, grading 86. - Browser support: 17/17 passed. The offline recovery test first failed with an unstamped development worker, then passed with the production stamp. Its assertions are unchanged. - Focused interaction UI and offline fallback tests: 19/19 passed. Verified the custom-answer composer in Storybook: no attachment controls or hint; entering an answer enables Next. - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. The worktree is clean. No new real-provider campaign was run. - Current CI and review: [Current PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36166011243): 55 successful checks and two optional Storybook skips. Greptile scored this exact commit 5/5. Hiding the question attachment controls is an intentional UI change; paste/drop remains available. Earlier recovery UI verification, commit `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. - Focused UI coverage: 338 tests passed across six suites (336 before the interaction guard, with the two affected suites rerun at 149 passed after it). Covers both task interfaces, the real page mutation, pending/error acknowledgement, stale state, and unavailable controls. - Recovery database integration: 352 tests passed before the interaction guard. The complete recovery-action and mutation-route suites passed 181 tests after it. The two new pending question/confirmation regressions failed before the fix and passed afterward, including resolved-interaction controls. Shared validator suite: 31 passed. E2E catalog suites: 34 passed. - Browser inspection passed for light/dark themes, mobile layout, expandable details, pending retry, acknowledgement, failure, and disabled retry. Storybook renders the production component; its request is simulated. - The broad local run hit two chat callback-order wait failures and was stopped after all CI unit/database/runner shards passed. Both local failures passed when rerun without the competing full-suite process. - CI exposed a repeated project-repository draft-loss race during canonical redirects. A new unit regression failed before the fix; all nine project-page tests now pass, including controls for other projects and companies. Both unchanged repository browser tests passed against a fresh local server. UI typecheck, production UI build, and token gates passed after this fix. - [Earlier PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36072486798) on `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: 55 successful checks, two optional Storybook skips, and no failed or pending checks. The repository browser shard passed with the production fix. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit with no unresolved review threads. The PR is mergeable. Historical, source-qualified lifecycle evidence: - Lifecycle baseline: 1,074 assertions. Native session coverage: 447 tests. Product E2E support: 515 tests. Browser support: 11 tests. Full earlier verification is retained in the archive. - [Real-provider campaign: 8/8 passed, zero retries](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35881382080-1/index.html), source `e88d210417280140b44a36449027290adcb1aeaa`. Evidence and cleanup checks passed. This includes deliberately exhausted repair cases that correctly remain blocked; it does not mean every task finished Done. This campaign predates the recovery UI change. - Archive migration verified all 16 original JSON files byte-for-byte and all 24 checksum entries. App tests do not need private archive access. [Archive PR #27](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/27) is merged. ## Risks - Agents that omit durable disposition receive at most two repair attempts by default. Prose-only completion exposes missing state rather than silently changing scheduling. - A retry is an explicit board action. The server rechecks current controls. A successful response confirms the task returned to To do; it does not claim that the provider has already started. - Existing notice metadata remains valid. Only older active notices with matching structured evidence receive the new UI. Historical notices without that evidence keep their existing rendering. No schema migration is required. - Old run records require conservative retry accounting. Tests cover old counters, alternating retry lanes, restarts, and exhausted repairs. - Historical snapshots require private `paperclip-evals` access. The app index retains public campaign links. Live campaigns qualify specific sources and scenarios; no new real-provider campaign has run for the recovery UI commit. > This fixes existing lifecycle and recovery behavior and does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted implementation, reasoning, code execution, and review. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. Historical real-provider evaluations used Codex model `gpt-5.6-sol`, separately from the implementation assistant. ## 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 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>	2026-09-25 15:28:11 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	5842185e4f	fix: surface native cleanup quarantine and add chat qualification evals (#13775 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their work. > - Agent Chat needs reliable native execution before native runners become the onboarding default. > - Existing stories covered idle reassignment and controller restart, but not an executing worker handoff or worker process loss. > - Status answer tests also need to reject stale claims and invented facts. > - This pull request adds six opt-in full-stack cells with independent state assertions and retained evidence. > - The probes exposed a misleading Retry across server projection and recovery-banner paths; the fix reports the blocked recovery honestly. > - The tests preserve failures without changing recovery policy, production prompts, or onboarding defaults. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #13762. Related: #13765 (Retry targets the latest failed attempt), #13753 (task context ownership), #13746 (native recovery work). ## What Changed - Add active reassignment with saved draft and plan preservation, old-worker cancellation, and successor completion checks. - Preserve recovery-needed projection when native cleanup fails before its coordinator exists, refuse a generic retry that would immediately fail again, and replace the recovery banner's misleading Retry with Inspect run. - Add verified local worker process loss with a required successful continuation; retain a failing qualification result when recovery is unavailable, while independently verifying the UI/API refuse doomed retries. - Add two-turn factual answer checks for current blockers, stale claims, inactive backlog work, and unknown facts. Retain prose for separate semantic review. - Add positive and negative oracle calibration and document fault isolation, cleanup, billing, and qualification limits. ## Verification - Eval TypeScript check passes. - All 442 eval support tests pass locally. The 89 focused server tests and server typecheck pass. Six recovery-banner UI tests and token gates pass. - Initial new-cell campaign: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35657128077. All six results are retained; four failed on fixture-contract issues and two exposed real worker cleanup quarantine. - All 26 existing native onboarding cells: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35656761484 (26/26 passed on master `846336e5a`, all cleanup passed). - Intermediate handoff/fault campaign: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35657945095 (four retained failures: two overly strict draft oracles, two real crash quarantines). - Final active handoff: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35659014397 (2/2 passed on cf6d4ae3a; both cleanup passed). - Clarified answer-quality fixtures: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35658262695 (2/2 passed on 4a26f10be; both cleanup passed; all four answers semantically reviewed). - Quarantine guard regression campaign: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35659580100 (both API requests correctly refused with 409/no second run, but exposed a separate misleading Retry in the recovery banner and a fixture wait on a non-admitted run). - Final quarantine guard verification: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35661067305 (`147e42f7e`: both providers verify Inspect run/no Retry, HTTP 409, one retained run, unchanged saved plan, and successful disposable cleanup. Both evals intentionally remain red with `worker_crash_recovery_unqualified`; no successful continuation exists). The preceding campaign 35658772755 never ran provider cases because GitHub artifact finalization returned HTTP 403. - Full repository CI passes on `147e42f7e`: typecheck, tests, build, and browser gates. One unchanged local-service-supervisor readiness test failed initially; its six-test file passed in isolation and the failed shard passed on its single rerun. Latest-head rollup: 54 successful, 2 intentionally skipped, no failed or pending checks. Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved findings. - See tests/runner-e2e/QUALIFICATION-2026-09-21.md for retained attempts and semantic review. Published reports: [onboarding](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35656761484-1/), [handoff](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35659014397-1/), [grounded answers](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35658262695-1/), [crash guards and unqualified recovery](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35661067305-1/). ## Risks - Paid cells are explicit-only and local-only. The fault fixture signals only the exact native run PID after checking its identity. - Live worker-loss probes currently fail on cleanup quarantine for both providers. The eval must remain red until there is a usable recovery, even when preservation and refusal checks pass. Verified cleanup with a fresh attempt versus exact-session resume remains a product decision. - Structured facts alone do not qualify prose quality; semantic review remains separate. - Onboarding uses the existing runtime switch after the real wizard and before provider execution. Native UI selection and public defaults remain unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact served snapshot and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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>	2026-09-21 18:13:01 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	846336e5a0	test: harden agent chat setup, interruptions and restart evals (#13762 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage agents through ongoing conversations. > - Chat users can change instructions while a provider is already working. > - Existing chat evals wait for each turn to settle before the next message. > - They cannot prove delivery during active work or the saved effect of a correction. > - Existing fixtures also enable Agent Chat through the API rather than the settings UI. > - This PR adds bounded browser workflows and checks their persisted outcomes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13741, #13752, #13750. What happened? The chat suites cover planning, delegation, status, and recovery. They lack active-turn follow-ups and the experimental settings lifecycle. A sequential conversation can pass even if messages sent during work are lost. Expected behavior A follow-up submitted during a provider turn survives and affects the final reply. A changed launch day appears in the saved plan. Disabling Agent Chat rejects new messages while preserving history; re-enabling resumes the same conversation. Steps to reproduce Run the explicit `agent-chat-stories` suite. It selects three local cases for each native Claude and Codex profile. An ordinary provider command waits for a fixture brief file so the browser can send the follow-up at an observed active-run boundary. ## What Changed - Add six opt-in Product E2E cells for settings, active follow-ups, and plan corrections. - Drive experimental settings through the UI and verify disabled sends are rejected by the public API. - Use a bounded file wait in the actual isolated agent workspace, with provider-written readiness and an undisclosed brief reference. - Grade persisted user messages, final replies, native run outcomes, and exact saved plan fields. - Accept active-turn steering or one queued successor; reject lost input, duplicate input, and stale outputs. - Allow one steered run or two sequential runs throughout the shared harness, while preserving exact counts for other cases. - Require a single marker-bearing response attributed to the final provider run. - Unload the development browser client before restarting the server, avoiding reconnect/navigation races without weakening the post-restart memory check. - Add browser regressions for restart isolation and asynchronously saved settings switches. - Document prepared-agent setup, native onboarding limits, and the separate API-tool rollout gate. ## Verification - Eval TypeScript check passed. - Eval support suite: 436 tests passed in 39 files. - New oracle calibration: six tests passed, including plausible invalid outcomes. - Browser support regressions: seven tests passed; the restart regression was observed failing before the fix. - Catalog discovery selects exactly six local native cases and leaves default paid selection unchanged. - [Consolidated existing native chat report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35643286055-1/): master `b82661b56`, 33/34 passed, all cleanup passed. The failure was a browser navigation timeout across restart; the page request returned 200 and the chat rendered. - [Nine targeted restart/replay cells](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35645850088-1/) passed on `1fe2fe275`, including the original failure, across native Claude/Codex and local/Daytona; all cleanup passed. - [Initial six-story campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35644832817) retained all six failures: asynchronous switch assertions, unavailable fixture paths, and rich-text escaping in raw command comparisons. The corrected fixtures preserve the same behavioral assertions. - [Six-story campaign v2](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35646270035-1/) on `8232773a0`: 4/6 passed (both settings cases and both Claude interruptions). Codex could not see the host-temp fixture outside its workspace; this failed before follow-up delivery was exercised. - [Four affected interruption cases](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35647760635-1/) all passed, including cleanup, on definition v3 / `ad6ac0545`. Files live inside the actual agent workspace and the observed run workspace is verified. Both providers saved Friday in the real plan with the undisclosed brief reference; follow-ups persisted while the original run was active. Together with both unchanged settings cases from v2, all six new scenario variants have passing live evidence. - Final head `ad6ac05456646c09d3452e320279457625353948`: 54 successful checks, two intentional skips, zero pending/failing checks; mergeable and clean. Fresh Greptile 5/5, zero unresolved findings. - Full typecheck, tests, build, and browser CI passed remotely. One earlier head encountered a signoff-policy browser timing failure; the final head passed that shard. - Local pnpm wrapper could not fetch its version/signature metadata in the restricted environment; local eval checks used the installed Node executables. Repo-wide validation was completed by GitHub Actions. ## Risks These are eval-only changes. The file wait is a timing fixture in the isolated agent workspace, not a production runner hook. Native Codex host-filesystem isolation stays unchanged. It has a two-minute limit and is released in `finally`. The prepared-agent settings case is not full native onboarding: the wizard currently offers legacy adapters. The disabled-entry assertion uses full document navigation, which clears the prior React Query cache; preserved history is checked through the public API and re-enabled chat. No production prompt, rollout default, adapter behavior, or credential policy changes. Active-task reassignment and worker-crash recovery remain outside these new cases. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository tools and code execution. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. ## 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>	2026-09-21 16:18:06 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9d19f98b50	fix: harden native chat recovery and add coordination evals (#13741 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - Agent chat uses native runner sessions to plan, delegate, and track that work. > - A user can press Stop while the native session is still starting. > - The server can acknowledge that Stop without dispatching it, then let the session submit a turn. > - This leaves chat recovery waiting for an execution that the user expected to stop. > - This PR waits for the startup handle, dispatches cancellation, and prevents a late startup from submitting a turn. > - New full-stack evals check the resulting records and outputs across Claude and Codex. > - Those evals also exposed missing ACPX readiness fields, unbounded polling, and an old-run identity check that rejected valid warm handoffs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Stop during native startup could record an acknowledged cancellation with `dispatched: false`. The provider could then begin work. A subsequent `/new` stayed queued. A remote Claude follow-up also exhausted the command journal while probing warm-session readiness: ACPX never returned the readiness fields required by the shared transport. Once readiness worked, attachment incorrectly compared the next run descriptor against the old run ID. The 25 ms polling loop could issue 4,800 commands during its two-minute wait, beyond the 500-command bound. The existing chat eval treated lifecycle logs as proof of an active provider turn, so it did not distinguish startup cancellation from active-turn cancellation. Expected behavior A Stop during startup must reach the pending session. A late session must not submit a prompt after Stop. Recovery must retain control when startup exceeds the bounded wait. Chat evals must check saved task state, document contents, worker identity, account binding, and duplicate effects. Steps to reproduce 1. Start a native Claude or Codex chat turn. 2. Press Stop after process startup is requested but before the provider turn starts. 3. Send `/new`, then send a fresh message. 4. On the affected base, cancellation can be acknowledged without dispatch and the reset stays queued. Paperclip version or commit The live Claude baseline reproduced this on `29d6b3509`. The branch also includes master commit `0f5fafe16`. Related work: #13678, #13686, #13693, #13291, #13738. A separate runner reliability branch also contains a startup-wait fix. Its overlap must be reconciled before merging; this branch additionally prevents prompt submission after a late startup. ## What Changed - Wait for a pending native startup before acknowledging a run-scoped Stop. Preserve the existing recovery error when that wait expires. - Keep a Stop guard on startup. Cancel a late handle before it can submit a provider turn. - Add regression tests for normal handle publication and publication after the Stop deadline. - Back off blocked warm-attachment probes. Keep the fast two-snapshot barrier, fail closed, and record changed blockers. - Add red/green tests for delayed readiness, persistent blockers, alternating readiness, and readiness near the deadline. - Publish ACPX readiness and blockers. Preserve the old authority’s event acknowledgement barrier; only settled sessions can proceed to attachment. - Bind warm ACPX descriptors to the validated next authority while retaining old-run event correlation until activation. Preserve session identity and provider profile checks. - Exercise two consecutive run rotations through a qualified fake sidecar, verifying checkpointing, provider identity, pre-activation rejection, and new-run work admission. - Separate startup and active-turn cancellation checkpoints in the browser eval. - Add 18 explicit native chat eval cells: 12 local and 6 Daytona cells across Claude and Codex. - Cover hiring and reuse through managed AI accounts, source-based review, current blocked-task status, request replay after a lost HTTP acknowledgement, server restart continuity, and Stop/reset continuity. - Use ordinary production agent instructions. Enable API tools only for the two coordination cases that need them. - Calibrate the matchers with invalid records and outputs. Require remembered context after restart and a structured status snapshot that distinguishes the current blocker from history and task status from active execution. Compare the public issue mutation contract and relationships during read-only reporting. Preserve before/after source records in failed eval evidence. - Fix the lost-ack browser harness and verify it against a real HTTP server. Check the chat composer after restart instead of waiting for an unrelated document lifecycle event. - Document the scope and limits of each case. ## Verification - The startup regression failed on the unfixed executor and passed after the fix. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` passed. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit` passed: 424 tests in 37 files. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/native-runtime/native-session-executor.test.ts` passed: 385 tests. - [Baseline live campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35608208868): Claude Stop reproduced the bug. Codex Stop and Claude hire/reuse passed. Codex delegation was blocked by provider capacity. - [Eval-only startup campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35609479786): both providers failed as expected. Both persisted `dispatched: false` and left `/new` queued. - [First fixed campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35610533706) on `c9e95797d`: 10/18 cells passed. Startup Stop passed for both providers. Failed cases exposed eval harness defects and remote continuity failures. All attempts remain available. - [Original workflows and stronger memory checks](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35611896649) on `c04324fab`: 9/12 passed. Reassignment, local restart memory, and startup Stop passed for both providers; Codex remote restart passed. Claude remote restart exposed the missing readiness contract. Two Codex planning cells hit provider capacity. - [Unchanged-model retry](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35613854548): Codex planning and backlog creation both passed. - [18-cell campaign with ACPX readiness](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35614586963) on `6a98ef743`: 16/18 passed, including all local/remote Stop and committed-send cases. Claude remote continuity exposed the next-authority check, now fixed. Codex hiring produced its checklist, but the runner redacted the requested marker after it appeared as “Tracking token: …”. That content-redaction policy is unchanged and remains an explicit limitation. - [Structured status grading](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35614954725) on `50448c228`: both providers passed on their first attempt, including cleanup. - [Complete read-only state grading](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35616089011) on `551e13892`: both providers passed. - [Final ACPX handoff and hiring retry](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35617045456) on `cbd637587`: all three Claude Daytona cases passed (restart continuity, active Stop/reset, and lost-ack replay). Codex hiring reproduced the content-redaction failure: the saved checklist contained `Tracking token: [REDACTED]` instead of the required business marker. All four cases completed cleanup successfully. [Published report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35617045456-1/). The only subsequent commit adds the qualified-sidecar integration test; production code is identical to this live proof. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:browser-support` passed: 5 browser tests without paid models. - Runner TypeScript typecheck passed. All 5 warm-readiness tests pass; two failed with the prior fixed-rate loop, and the late-readiness test failed before the pacing correction. - ACPX readiness and warm-identity regressions each failed before their fixes. All 292 runner-core Rust library tests passed. The qualified-sidecar integration test passes. Rust formatting is checked. - Status-grader regressions for misleading historical mentions and previously unchecked mutations each failed before tightening the oracle and pass now. - [Latest-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35617522307) passed on `a4093c8f1`: full build, type checks, test partitions, browser E2E, and native runner checks. Two unrelated tests initially failed (Sentry fixture release attribution and local-service fixture readiness); both passed locally together (35 passed, 5 optional SDK tests skipped) and on the failed-job retry. No changes were made to those tests. - Greptile reviewed `a4093c8f1` at 5/5; both earlier findings are fixed and all review threads are resolved. - The paid live suite is not fully green: the reproducible content-redaction case remains red. This is separate from the passing PR merge checks. No production content-redaction, prompt, model, or completion-policy change is included. - Managed-account hiring and review cases explicitly enable API tools; these do not qualify default new-user onboarding. ## Risks - Stop can wait up to 30 seconds for startup, then use the existing pending-recovery path. This does not prove that remote cleanup has finished. - Blocked warm readiness adds up to 750 ms between later probes with the two-minute remote budget, or about 32 ms with the default five-second budget. Ready sessions retain the short second barrier. - Paid evals can fail because of provider capacity or agent decisions. Each failure needs evidence-based classification. - The HTTP request replay case checks comment idempotency and duplicate effects. It does not prove replay safety for an ambiguous provider tool call. - The new suite is opt-in. It does not increase the default paid campaign. - No production prompts or model selection change. Review-handoff behavior and content-redaction policy remain separate product decisions. The latter can remove harmless business content that looks like credential syntax; the failing attempt is retained. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository tools and code execution. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. ## 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>	2026-09-21 10:35:38 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	18989a9e73	docs: add eval guide, authoring skills, and public history hub (#13535 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its evaluations test both the Runner and complete product workflows. > - The guides and run histories are in separate places. > - The shared Evalbook viewer can make the test boundary unclear. > - This pull request names the two families and adds a guide, authoring skills, and a public hub. > - Contributors can choose the correct test and inspect its history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Issue type Missing documentation. Where is the issue? Runner and Product E2E evaluation guides, case-authoring procedures, and public result navigation. What's wrong? There is no single entry point. A report format can be mistaken for an execution boundary. There are no dedicated case-authoring skills for these two families. Suggested fix Add a guide and three skills. Link both existing histories from a public hub. Keep existing campaign URLs and grading unchanged. ## What Changed - Add `doc/evals.md` and links from existing guides. - Add the `paperclip-evals`, `add-runner-eval`, and `add-product-e2e-eval` skills. Install copies in `~/paperclipai/.agents/skills`. - Add a static hub builder that reads the existing public history feeds. - Show a dated snapshot for each family. Label partial campaigns and preserve measurement dates across report refreshes. - Document publication and refresh commands for https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals/. ## Verification - Seven Python summary tests pass: `python3 -m unittest discover -s scripts/evals-hub -p 'test_*.py'`. Run these checks directly; this PR does not modify package scripts. - All three skills pass the skill-creator `quick_validate.py` check with `/usr/bin/python3`. - Build tested with saved history fixtures and the live public feeds. - Desktop and mobile browser checks pass. The mobile page has no horizontal overflow. - Published https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals/. Browser check: HTTP 200, no page errors, all eight links return HTTP 200, no mobile overflow. - Independent skill exercises found the existing Notion-decline case and a direct Runner permission-denial case. Roster validation with an explicit run ID passes. - Missing refresh measurement date: regression fails before the fix and passes after it. - `git diff --check` passes. - No paid evals were run for this documentation and reporting change. The preceding head passed typecheck, build, server/workspace tests, runner verification, browser E2E, and the canary dry run. Checks for the latest commit are pending. Local repository-wide typecheck, test, and build were not repeated because no product code changed. ## Risks The hub is a dated static snapshot. It can lag behind the linked histories until an operator refreshes it. A changed history schema stops the build. Existing archives and grades are not modified. The published guide link is pinned to the reviewed commit so branch deletion cannot break it. Later builds can use master. ## Model Used OpenAI gpt-6-astra for implementation and review. OpenAI gpt-5.6-luna for documentation and independent skill checks. Both used repository tools and code execution. Context window sizes are not exposed by this session. ## 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (latest commit pending) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (preceding head was 5/5; latest commit pending) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-16 08:41:06 -05:00