2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	eb049aebf2	feat(skills): let agents update company skills safely (#15049) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is an open source control plane for AI-agent companies. > - Company skills give agents reusable work instructions. > - Skill Studio can edit skill files and save version history. > - Agents can create a skill, but they do not have a first-class update tool. > - An agent update needs a version check and safe retry behavior to prevent lost edits. > - This pull request adds `update_skill` through the existing company skill file API. > - The change keeps company policy, version history, and audit records in one path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: the server API, shared validation, and runner tool catalog. **Problem or motivation** An agent can create a company skill but cannot update its `SKILL.md` through a first-class tool. An unguarded retry can also create duplicate versions or overwrite a newer edit. **Proposed solution** Add `update_skill` with a required current version ID and a retry key. Route it through the existing skill file API. Reject stale versions and changed-input retries. Save the version and audit event together. **Alternatives considered** A separate write endpoint would duplicate the Skill Studio mutation path and policy checks. This PR reuses that path instead. **Roadmap alignment** This work extends Skills Manager and Skill Studio, which are listed in `ROADMAP.md`. **Additional context** The tool accepts a complete `SKILL.md`, not a partial patch. Callers must read the current version before they edit it. ## What Changed - Add optional version and retry fields to the existing skill file update contract. - Add a guarded API update with a stable retry receipt and attributed audit event. - Add `update_skill` to native and semantic runner tool catalogs, with mode and policy gates. - Add unit, integration, protocol, and semantic-tool regression coverage. - Document agent use and extend the OpenAPI request contract. ## Verification - Focused tests and direct server and runner TypeScript checks passed before this PR. - `git diff --check` passed after the rebase onto `master`. - CI passed on the latest PR head, including the full test matrix, typecheck, and build. Local full typecheck and build stopped because `cargo` is not installed. The local full test run ended without a verdict. - No dedicated end-to-end eval scenario was added or run. The protocol coverage and semantic-tool test cover the new action deterministically. - Reviewers can read a skill version, call `update_skill`, repeat the same key, then try a stale version and a changed-input key. Only the first edit must create a new version. ## Risks - File writes and database transactions must stay in sync when a write fails. The integration tests cover failed writes and retry behavior, but CI must verify them on the PR head. - Existing Skill Studio callers do not send the new optional coordination fields. Their request shape remains valid. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI assisted with this change. The runner did not expose the exact model ID or context window. The agent used code execution and repository tools. ## 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; exact model ID and context window were not exposed) - [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 (focused tests; full suite is pending CI) - [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 (53 pass, 4 skip on the latest head) - [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>	2026-10-03 12:37:55 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9fd2e50310	feat: create company skills from runner tasks (#13538) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Runner gives agents tools to change company resources. > - Users need agents to save reusable skills during a task. > - A saved skill needs a visible result that users can inspect and edit. > - This pull request adds `create_skill` and a task feed card linked to Skill Studio. > - Users can open the saved skill from the task and edit the same resource. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Runner tools, company skill storage, task feed, and Skill Studio. **Problem or motivation** The Runner has no dedicated tool to create a company skill. A user cannot follow a creation result from the task feed to the saved skill. **Proposed solution** Add a company-scoped `create_skill` tool. Save the skill with the existing company policy. Add one creation card to the task. Open a named sidebar tab from that card. Let the user open the same skill in Skill Studio. **Alternatives considered** An agent can write a local file, but that file is not a company skill. A second document copy in the task would become stale after a Studio edit. The sidebar therefore reads the saved skill directly. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the shipped Skills Manager, Skill Studio, and Skills Store milestone. The maintainer requested and approved this scope. Search found no duplicate `create_skill` PR or issue. Related UI validation work: #8715. This PR does not change that validation display. ## What Changed - Add the real Runner tool, its contract, and its mock implementation. - Validate the complete SKILL.md and derive company, task, agent, and run identity from authentication. - Apply the existing company skill policy. Do not assign the skill to an agent. - Make keyed retries return one skill and one creation event. Reject conflicting retries. - Make concurrent file creation safe. Never replace an existing published skill during creation. - Add a creation card, a named sidebar tab, and an Open in Skill Studio action. - Show saved Studio edits when the user returns to the task. - Add storage, policy, mode, retry, UI, and Product E2E tests. Document the tool. - Fix deleted-name reuse, onboarding panel persistence, immediate feed refresh, and mock validation parity from review. - Serialize Studio file edits and renames with skill deletion and recreation. Reject stale editor requests before they can change a replacement skill. - Generate the standalone mock parser and validator from the production contract. Use portable UUIDs so the browser scenario bundle builds. ## Verification - All latest-head PR checks pass on `145dd76a5`, including all server shards, browser E2E, Runner verification, build, typecheck, and release dry run. Greptile: 5/5 with no open findings. An interrupted CI runner was retried successfully. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - Review regressions: 73 storage tests, 6 real API tests, 63 UI tests, and 61 semantic runtime tests passed. Parser synchronization passed. - CI exposed existing fire-and-forget Sentry test races. Reproduced the resumption race locally, then synchronized the related sweep and finalizer assertions on the actual report; all 27 tests across the three affected files pass. - Runner scenario browser build and strict content-security-policy check: passed. - Runner suite: 2,012 tests passed; 10 skipped. - `pnpm test:run`: the general-server batch had 12,416 passes and two failures. The old tool-count assertion was fixed; all 16 authority tests then passed. The chat webhook test had a socket error; it passed four isolated reruns. - Both workspace test groups passed. The isolated route suites completed. Two socket failures in the initial route batches passed on individual reruns; all remaining 61 files passed. - Product E2E `create-skill-studio`: passed with local Codex and local ACPX Claude. - Manual browser test: submit a task, observe the real tool call and creation card, open the sidebar, edit in Studio, save, and return. The task reached Done. The saved second revision and sidebar tab survived a server restart. - The new companion headless Runner Eval passed. Companion coverage PR: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/23. Daytona was not run because no immutable runner image was configured. ## Risks - Database writes and local file writes cannot share one transaction. Recovery accepts only an exact file-for-file retry after a database rollback. Conflicting files remain untouched. - The sidebar displays the current skill. The feed card remains the historical creation receipt. - No database migration, dependency, or workflow change is included. - Remote Daytona behavior still needs a run with a configured immutable image. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (`gpt-6-astra`) handled design, integration, review, and browser verification. OpenAI `gpt-5.6-luna` assisted with bounded implementation and eval work. Both used code execution and tool access. The host did 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>	2026-09-16 13:01:58 -05:00