mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-07 16:11:46 +02:00
codex/native-completion-current-master-candidate
9
Commits
| 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> |
||
|
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> |
||
|
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> |
||
|
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> |
||
|
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 |
||
|
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> |
||
|
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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7bc03e0acd |
feat(runner): default harnesses to full auto and support task reassignment (#13686)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their work. > - Agent Chat uses native runners to save plans and coordinate tasks. > - Provider defaults differed across harnesses and could stop unattended work at a second permission gate. > - Agents also lacked a dedicated tool to move existing work to another agent safely. > - This change defaults native providers to full automatic permission for provider tools and connected tools. > - A guarded reassignment tool preserves task identity, stops the previous run, and schedules the new owner once. > - Codex and Claude chat acceptance tests now use production permission defaults. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Native runner, ACPX Claude permission policy, task authority, and Agent Chat acceptance tests. **Problem or motivation** A user can authorize an agent to save a plan or create a task, but Claude's default provider gate can still stop that action. Reassignment needs a dedicated operation that preserves context and avoids concurrent owners or unintended recovery runs. **Proposed solution** Default Claude/ACPX to `approve-all`, OpenCode to `allow`, and Codex to `never`. Apply the defaults at configuration, execution, fresh-session, resume, driver, and proxy boundaries. Keep explicit permission settings and server-side company, claim, task-mode, and approval checks. Add `reassign_task` with version checks, durable idempotency, audited cancellation, and guarded successor scheduling. **Alternatives considered** A Paperclip-only allowlist still blocks provider tools and other connections during unattended work. Full automatic permission is the requested product default. Recreating a task discards its identity and history. Updating assignment without stopping the previous run can leave two agents working on the same task. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing planning, delegated work, governed tool access, and recovery features. It adds no new service or schema migration. Recent related tasks and open PRs were checked for duplicate work. **Additional context** Related: #13678 (Agent Chat tools and recovery), #13677 (remote runner startup). The stacked legacy-adapter companion is #13693. This also fixes the deployed-server artifact fallback needed to stage the current runner binary. ## What Changed - Default Claude/ACPX to `approve-all`, OpenCode to `allow`, and Codex to `never`, including missing settings at direct driver and proxy entry points. These defaults cover provider tools and connected tools. Preserve explicitly configured restrictive modes. - Include assigned approval reads using canonical side-effect classifications, so verifying a recorded approval does not trigger another provider gate. Paperclip approval decisions still enforce controller authority. - Carry the new permission mode through server configuration, execution contracts, recovery identity, TypeScript, and Rust. Keep `approve-paperclip` as an optional restricted mode, with exact SDK rules and closed unknown requests. It is not a default. - Add `reassign_task` to the semantic catalog, controller, mock authority, and generated contracts. - Guard reassignment with company authorization, expected owner and version, protected-state checks, and durable retry receipts. - Honor explicit backlog task creation atomically with the initial plan, without scheduling a wake. Preserve backlog holds regardless of dependency readiness. - Stop active work before changing ownership. Restore the prior owner through a guarded, idempotent wake if final handoff validation fails. Keep intentional reassignment stops out of failure recovery. Preserve backlog and blocked states without waking them early. - Add authorization, concurrency, replay, stop, and permission boundary regressions. Add Codex and Claude chat reassignment cases and run native chat cases with production defaults. - Clarify shared runner guidance: save plans and Paperclip documents directly with `write_document`; create and register a local file only when a downloadable file is requested. - Document provider defaults and the operator choices for existing agents. ## Verification - Current head `d82fbb0f03546d27cecf072250e4172e0b1ee662`: **55 checks passed**, with two intentional skips. [PR checks](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13686/checks). - Greptile reviewed that exact head at **5/5**. The security reviewer acknowledged the intended full-auto default, and the acknowledged discussions are resolved. - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally after rebasing onto current master. Targeted adapter/server, runner, API, default/resume, and heartbeat configuration tests passed. - **All six real-provider acceptance cases passed on their first attempt, with cleanup passing:** plan handoff, task reassignment, and backlog creation/status, each on native Claude and Codex. Evidence records Claude's effective `approve-all` mode. [Campaign and downloadable evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35469926548). - The live campaign tested combined revision `a37881c824dcd7170380fc4b788732fc743e5da7`. The final PR heads add only a heartbeat test expectation correction; application code is unchanged from that live-tested revision. - The campaign's result-enforcement job passed. Its separate report publisher failed because the trusted workflow's `patchedDependencies` configuration differs from its frozen lockfile. All six results and screenshots remain available as GitHub artifacts. The overall manual workflow is red for this publishing failure. - Full-suite coverage is supplied by the passing CI partitions. The separate unsharded local run was stopped after the corresponding CI partitions passed; it is not counted as a completed local run. - Reassignment tests cover stale state, cross-company access, denied authority, cancellation failure, compensating wake, and idempotent retries. Backlog tests verify the original creation audit, saved plan, exact task count, and absence of task-bound runs. ## Risks - Agents with no explicit permission mode now receive full provider tool permission, including connected tools. This is a deliberate broad default. Existing explicit restrictive modes still apply. Controller authorization, company isolation, workspace boundaries, and Paperclip governance remain in force. - Reassignment crosses run cancellation and task ownership transactions. Durable stop intent, revalidation, audit receipts, and guarded queue dispatch cover interruptions and retries. - The new permission enum requires a current runner artifact. The remote artifact fallback uses the same resolved controller binary for upload and execution. - Live provider behavior remains subject to the selected model. Targeted live results do not qualify the full catalog. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with code execution and repository tools. The exact deployment model ID 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ab15aff390 |
feat: add experimental persistent agent chat (#13284)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Conversations must use the same tasks, controls, and execution history. > - Users need an ongoing chat with an agent without managing task properties. > - Agents should clarify and plan work, then hand execution to assigned project tasks. > - This pull request combines the reviewed Agent Chat stack for one squash merge. > - The benefit is persistent conversation with normal task governance and shared UI. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Task lifecycle, agent runtime tools, shared task UI, and browser/paid runner tests. **Problem or motivation** Users need one persistent conversation with each agent. A separate chat store or renderer would duplicate task behavior and bypass existing controls. **Proposed solution** Use a task-backed chat per company, user, and agent. Reuse the task composer and transcript. Clarify and plan in chat, then create assigned project tasks with the relevant plan. Keep Agent Chat behind its own disabled-by-default experimental setting. **Roadmap alignment** This implements the task-backed direction in [CEO Chat](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/master/ROADMAP.md#-ceo-chat). Related proposals: #2504 and #9693. Related request: #7981. The maintainer requested one squash merge of the complete stack. Consolidates the reviewed runtime [#13281](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13281), backend [#13282](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13282), and UI [#13283](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13283) layers with this PR's E2E coverage. All four layers passed CI and received Greptile 5/5 before consolidation. This PR targets master and includes the complete feature. ## What Changed - Add personal canonical chat tasks with ordinary company visibility, immutable identity, idempotent first sends, and an idle waiting state. - Process `/new` in queue order. Preserve history, release a chat pause, and fence old provider context and delayed writes. - Keep chat lifecycle rules across recovery, finalization, assignment, task lists, and rollups. - Support research and plan revision in chat. Hand plans to ordinary assigned project tasks before execution starts. Reject new chat subtasks. - Add repository-aware project creation and discovery tools, including multiple repository IDs and GitHub URLs, authorization, idempotency, and durable project-created cards. - Reuse task UI components for chat, with starred/recent agent navigation and a separate `enableAgentChat` experimental flag. - Add deterministic browser tests and 24 paid chat cells across four Codex/Claude profiles, with validated reports and screenshots. - Integrate current master recovery, controller lease, queued-message, and task UI changes. Gate chat interruption and deferred promotion on ownership/feature policy. Guarantee lease renewal and active controls are stopped even if teardown fails. - Preserve master's migration 0273 and generate chat migration 0274 with idempotent replay for development databases. ## Verification - Prior exact heads of all four PRs passed Linux CI, including build, typecheck, general/serialized tests, and browser E2E. Each had Greptile 5/5 and no unresolved findings. - Integrated local verification passed: full repository typecheck and production build, Storybook build, token gates, 340 focused UI tests, all 20 deterministic chat browser tests, two migration replay tests, 88 focused chat/queue/native/controller tests, and provider/session regressions including real lease expiry. These include the three lifecycle regressions for the final admission/teardown fixes; server typecheck also passes. Current head `1268eda16cc2af892055917e7292f068820be135` has Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings and passing security scans. All final-head CI gates passed: build, full Runner verification, typecheck/release registry, canary, all general/serialized test shards, and all browser E2E shards ([CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34696739927)). Local PostgreSQL startup contention required serialized retries; skipped fixtures do not count as passing coverage. - The earlier paid campaign passed all 24 chat cells and retained 32 screenshots: [report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-34648511170-1/index.html?report=agent-chat#suite-agent-chat). It tested `abacbdfd2f660709ec37312cdb758284c8399d04`; it is prior evidence, not a paid run of this integrated head. - Manual check: enable Agent Chat in Experimental settings, open an agent, clarify and revise a plan, then hand off to an assigned project task. Stop a reply, send `/new`, and verify fresh context with retained history. Disable the setting and verify agent shortcuts/new chat turns are blocked. ## Risks - Queue/session integration can affect retries and delayed writes. Tests cover ownership, cancellation, reset boundaries, idle recovery, and ordinary task behavior. - Migration 0274 adds conversation fields and constraints. Replay is idempotent and preserves existing development chat history. - This combines the previously reviewed stack at the maintainer's request. Agent Chat remains off by default and is separate from Conference Room. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 Astra (`gpt-6-astra`), with reasoning, code execution, browser tools, and parallel review. The exact context-window size is not exposed in this session. Codex and Claude also ran as test subjects in the linked paid campaign. ## 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> |