4 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	b508a05c43	feat: add internal agent complaints and suggestions (#15367) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents use legacy skills or native runner tools to work on tasks. > - Those agents can encounter friction that does not belong in the task thread. > - A complaint should preserve the raw reaction. A suggestion should describe an improvement. > - This pull request adds attributed local storage and both submission paths. > - Agents can submit feedback once and continue their primary work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Server, database, shared contracts, runtime skills, and native runner tools. **Problem or motivation** Agents have no default internal channel for incidental complaints and suggestions. Sending this feedback through task comments adds noise and can alter task workflows. **Proposed solution** Store free-form feedback in the current instance database. Derive agent, run, company, and task attribution from active authority. Provide default legacy skills and provider-neutral native actions. Keep the instructions close to Warp's MIT-licensed originals. **Alternatives considered** Task comments and external Slack delivery add unwanted side effects. Mandatory suggestion fields and short editorial limits would discard useful feedback. This release has no listing API, UI, read tool, automatic triage, or external forwarding. **Roadmap alignment** This is a maintainer-requested addition to the existing runtime skills and runner tool paths. It does not duplicate a listed roadmap milestone. Searches for complaint tooling, suggestion-box, and agent commentary found no overlapping public PR or issue. ## What Changed - Add the company-scoped `agent_commentary` table, shared validation, and idempotent migration `0310`. - Add one transactional service and the agent-only POST route. Validate active authority before writes or replay. Redact known credentials. Commit a content-free audit with each new record. - Add `submit_complaint` and `submit_suggestion` to standard, ask, and planning modes. Keep review, revocation, and completion restrictions. Store replay identity on the commentary row. - Mount `complain` and `suggestion-box` by default for legacy agents. Bundle a dependency-free Node.js stdin helper in the operational skill and allow its POST through the sandbox bridge. - Preserve Warp's complaint voice and suggestion guidance, with attribution and local transport adaptations. Keep source attribution and MIT notices in each skill's LICENSE, outside runtime instructions. - Document custom-runtime HTTP use and database inspection. Add real-database tests and a repeatable live Codex smoke for local and Daytona execution. - Pin the lagging-source migration fixture before the identity-repair migration so later migrations preserve its regression coverage. ## Verification - Personally ran real Codex submissions in all four environments on 2026-10-06. Local runs passed at 20:35 UTC. Daytona native passed at 20:31 UTC; Daytona legacy passed at 20:33 UTC. Each stored exactly two rows with company, agent, run, and task attribution, wrote the continuation marker, exited zero, created no task comments, and left task status unchanged. Each recorded two content-free activity entries. - Daytona used production provider hooks, real remote execution and file transfer, the legacy queue callback bridge, and native private WebSocket ingress. The current Linux runner was built from `abf47b595`, staged, and verified against controller contracts. Both sandboxes were confirmed deleted. This is a focused feedback transport smoke; it does not claim full Runner E2E catalog or browser qualification. - The immutable base image and Linux binary digest are recorded in [the verification documentation](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/codex/agent-commentary/doc/agent-commentary.md#verification). The smoke script can save content-free JSON evidence. No credentials or feedback bodies are in these reports. | Environment | Runner | Complaint row | Suggestion row | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | local | legacy Codex | `59413a00-1de2-4bb1-bcc6-9c4b54c64aa6` | `3db2364d-3e15-4f47-846f-875d3902999d` | | local | native Codex | `5da22b5f-41df-4de5-8ba0-d9345ab01267` | `2d5abe17-dd41-403c-a5ee-4729f2d58921` | | daytona | legacy Codex | `27c9d0aa-8477-409f-9da0-e8ffa48dee50` | `209681c9-d1e9-4ce1-999e-48fa07692389` | | daytona | native Codex | `6eb001bb-4bcf-43f7-8717-f662f53dc7c3` | `77c383d8-a997-49e5-a33e-25c70e15c0b2` | - Run the local check with `node cli/node_modules/tsx/dist/cli.mjs server/scripts/verify-agent-commentary-live.ts`. The documentation gives the Daytona invocation. Both use disposable instance databases and normal Codex provider usage. - Repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed after the test extension. The build includes runner generation, contracts, and replay checks. The smoke scripts also passed a separate TypeScript check. The lagging-source migration regression passed. All equivalent current-head Vitest CI shards passed. The local monolithic `pnpm test:run` invocation was stopped after CI supplied that coverage; it did not complete locally. - Focused tests cover company isolation, spoofing, revoked credentials, stale ownership, post-finish rejection, concurrent replay, conflicting keys, atomic rollback, and deletion through existing services. Boundary tests cover empty text, Unicode, text beyond 8,000 characters, and the 524,288-character ceiling without truncation. Mounting tests cover Codex, Claude, and sandbox staging. Helper tests cover standalone Node execution, stdin, invalid UTF-8, redirects, HTTP failure, and its deadline. Privacy and bridge tests cover successful and rejected requests. - Instructions were compared with Warp's originals. MIT notices and source credits live only in LICENSE files. Native tools preserve truthful disclosure when asked, without routine announcements. - [Full CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37508559190) and Greptile 5/5 passed on the earlier feature commit `5209c3501`. The later head found the migration-fixture assumption fixed in this update. On `8a4965164`, all 55 check contexts passed after one browser shard rerun. Its initial reviewer signoff failure also passed an isolated local browser run (1 test). Greptile scored that head 5/5 and identified one smoke cleanup gap. `6ecbafb0b` fixes failed-acquisition cleanup with four passing tests and a passing smoke-script typecheck. Fresh CI is pending for this final test-only fix. No commentary production code changed during verification. ## Risks - Feedback is internally attributed. It is not anonymous. Existing redaction removes known credentials, but agents must still omit sensitive content. Normal provider transcripts can include their submitted arguments. - Default skill availability changes for existing legacy agents. Runtime policy filtering still applies. The helper uses the existing Node.js runtime with no extra dependencies; custom runtimes can call the HTTP endpoint. - Feedback is removed with its run, agent, or company. Task deletion clears only the issue pointer. Normal database backups include the table. - The migration is additive and has no backfill. Writes serialize on the active run for replay consistency. No server suggestion quota is imposed. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6-astra` through Codex, with `xhigh` reasoning effort and a reported 258,400-token context window. Capabilities used: repository inspection, code execution, and live runtime verification. No subagents were used. ## 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 - [ ] 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>	2026-10-06 16:14:06 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	b17019e14d	fix(agents): reduce default instructions and qualify stock harnesses (#14948) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its adapters supply task context and access to Paperclip skills and tools. > - The default hire manual and shared prompts also repeat general work procedures. > - Those procedures overlap with stock provider instructions and the Paperclip skill. > - Existing E2E fixtures supply a QA manual, so they do not qualify the production default. > - This pull request reduces the generic instructions and adds real default-hire coverage. > - The benefit is less competing guidance, with inspectable evidence for preserved skills and task context. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #14920. That merged change preserves native Codex base instructions. This PR covers the default manual, shared legacy prompts, operational skill guidance, and the narrowly approved ACP skill-discovery/session-environment repair for measured delivery and credential-persistence failures. **What existing behavior does this improve?** New non-CEO hires without a custom bundle and legacy task/chat startup and continuation prompts. **Current behavior** The shipped default manual contains 602 words. Generic task/chat prompts and ordinary resume deltas repeat work procedures already available through the harness and Paperclip skill. **Proposed behavior** The default manual contains only the eight-word company identity. Shared startup prompts retain identity and connection guidance. Ordinary resume deltas retain current work context without the generic execution contract. **Reason and benefit** Let the stock harness guide general work. Keep Paperclip-specific capabilities and independently test default hires, skills, ordered comments, and chat restart. **Breaking changes** New default hires receive less guidance. Existing saved manuals, explicit custom bundles, CEO templates, and specialized wake contracts retain their behavior. The obsolete includeExecutionContract option remains accepted for source compatibility. ## What Changed - Reduce the default hire manual to one sentence. - Reduce shared task/chat defaults and remove the generic ordinary-resume contract. - Keep connection guidance, auth, skills, custom prompts, and specialized wake context. - Add credential-free instruction-boundary gates and 26 explicit Product E2E cells across eight legacy/native profiles, including two focused Paperclip-storage cases. - Capture public hire receipts before providers run, then grade delivered prompts and independent task/chat outcomes. - Add an early legacy skill API recipe for saving a task document, checking the saved revision receipt and linking the document. Improve stock task/heartbeat skill-selection metadata and show a clickable Markdown UI-link example. Keep native tool completion separate. - Advertise bounded routing descriptions and exact successfully staged SKILL.md paths in legacy ACP Claude; keep full bodies on demand and preserve remote path rebasing. - Remove only the provider environment from copied persisted ACP session records, while loading current run credentials and preserving all other options/conversation state. - Regenerate both capability metadata inventories and reject stale manifests/inventories before provider admission. - Publish the original reduction and focused skill-repair comparisons, preserving all failures, automatic recovery, cost coverage and limitations. ## Verification **Behavioral qualification remains pending.** Original legacy ACP Claude loses the issue document only in the reduced cohort beneath an unchanged credential failure. A source-backed diagnosis finds that neither ordinary assignment reads the staged operational skill, while the runtime persists provider environment in session state. The new common repairs expose skill metadata/path and omit persisted env; strict document and credential guards stay intact. [Inspectable diagnosis and retained hashes](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/9f654db4541d3d002769c988f6e51fc0b08dadbd/doc/plans/2026-10-03-legacy-acp-claude-readiness.md). Current repair head `de0965984ff3edf611ae6d0e7ca5c7d5ae3947bb` incorporates master `569c7203aa24b95440682983ce7940ba1d4247bd` (merged #14961/#15007). All 222 affected adapter tests, adapter-utils/E2E typechecks, and final 96 variant/grader/retry calibrations pass. The frozen historical comparator is `c25697f4260b6f3adfea143c3ae9932e2f42986d`: 8,280 of 8,291 paths identical, exactly two production instruction paths plus nine declared unit expectations differ. The operational skill/discovery/environment repairs, selected model/profile/task/core grader/auth/permissions/retry policy are identical. Both actual launcher prepare→verify admissions pass with zero providers. [Immutable manifest and exact receipts](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/9f654db4541d3d002769c988f6e51fc0b08dadbd/doc/plans/2026-10-03-legacy-acp-claude-evidence/manifest.json). One original legacy ACP Claude cell per variant is authorized, with enforced single campaign attempts, 12-minute deadlines and company/agent 1,000-cent hard stops; every product recovery run/cost is counted. Actual live outcomes are pending. Current normal CI has one failed server shard and failed aggregate verify under diagnosis; other normal gates including typecheck/build/Rust/all eight browser shards pass. Fresh review completed successfully; the valid historical startup/resume masking finding was fixed with per-invocation task/chat checks and strict complete-snapshot capture, calibrated and resolved. Prior heads, failures and campaigns below remain historical evidence, not checks on this repair head. - Prior head `36aa4d81c49a1a8f6f04b1a068fae19aa901955f` is replayed on merged hiring master `862a5758ba0e88a33232c1f1fa645e85c38a3113`. All 52 current-head checks pass with two intentional Storybook skips, including repository typecheck/test/build and the browser shard. Fresh Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved review threads. Exact-head stock prerequisites pass 599 assertions (598 TypeScript + 1 Rust), all six gates and retained receipt verification, zero providers/source errors. Fingerprint `a7f5a22d860a88fe20cce213c6d5e0004788f32c8363930729aea4fd740ad16d`. Combined catalog/hiring calibrations pass 67 assertions, E2E typecheck and 26-cell stock discovery pass. Canonical contract/inventory checks and the later issue-derived reference calibration are retained; that reference-only follow-up is not live-qualified by earlier frozen runs. - Prior full repository typecheck/build passed. The complete local Vitest run executed 14,956 tests: 14,870 passed, 83 skipped, three timing failures. All three affected files passed unchanged narrow reruns; original failures remain retained. Current-head CI now passes the full general checks; the original local failures remain retained. - The original 24-pair default-manual/shared-prompt comparison has two new overall classic Claude/OpenCode document-delivery failures plus an additional legacy ACP Claude document loss beneath an unchanged credential-guard failure (not closed by later runs), two newly passing OpenCode ordered cases, seven unchanged failures and 13 unchanged passes. Equal 15/24 totals do not establish behavioral equivalence. [Complete original report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/875f4c397d9e8c3f12f39dedd59abaf1eaf5236e/doc/plans/2026-10-02-stock-harness-live-comparison.md). - The skill-only repair holds the eight-word manual/shared prompts and merged #14920 fixed. All four matched profile configurations and 203 fixture/behavior files match. Candidate `abd0b628ca642c09a54a4edc56a5227402f6686e` varies only the two skill sources against baseline `bc83fe030234439ac51279502a28803958963e2e`. [Candidate workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37060885547) and [baseline workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37060888047) each pass 571 exact-source prerequisites before providers; all eight cells clean up successfully. Failed campaigns publish successfully and remain failed. - Repair pairs: Claude original Fail → Pass; Claude explicit Pass → Pass; both OpenCode cases Fail → Fail. Explicit OpenCode's handoff worsens beneath the unchanged failing UI-link grade: baseline gives a clickable API URL, candidate gives a code-formatted path without an anchor. The request's usable-link wording is narrower in the UI-only oracle. [Complete repair report and safe projection](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/875f4c397d9e8c3f12f39dedd59abaf1eaf5236e/doc/plans/2026-10-02-legacy-document-skill-repair.md). - The subsequent narrow stock metadata/link correction has two matched Pass → Pass cases, zero new machine failures/passes and no pending pairs. Both original-case handoff links remain deficient: candidate uses a wrong PAP prefix, baseline supplies a bare prefix-less slug path; the preserved original oracle only requires a durable document. Both explicit clickable UI-link cases pass revision/content/link grading. All four exact-source 587-check gates, single assignment runs and cleanup pass. This does not establish fix causality because baseline also succeeds. [Candidate workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37069547401) freezes `fe9dc1e3c518825242ed889ab9c8352986f8c2ed`; [matched baseline](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37069552374) freezes `0d7ecfa96d72fba79b7f0a25052b42c0686c0488`. This is a skill-only comparison with reduced manuals/shared prompts held constant, not a repeat of the historical-manual comparison. Only original and clarified explicit classic OpenCode cases are selected, two per variant/four expected turns. 8,242 other tracked files and both profile hashes match; protected workflows admit each exact source before credentials. [Complete qualification report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/74d0d3d945f4c52d0814b5a845ab5bd09f33cd6b/doc/plans/2026-10-02-opencode-skill-routing-link-qualification.md). Candidate original loads Paperclip/reference before saving publicly; baseline original loads it after writing locally, then saves publicly within the same assignment. Reported cost totals are $0.0107824490 candidate / $0.0107909015 baseline, with unmetered runtime. The later reference-only issue-derived link correction is provider-free calibrated and **not live-qualified** by these frozen runs; no further paid runs. - Retained tool calls show the repaired original OpenCode assignment loads only its assigned output skill before writing locally. Operational Paperclip is first loaded during automatic disposition recovery; its early recipe is visible then, but it never saves the missing document. Explicit candidate loads Paperclip and reads the new reference before saving successfully. All nine actual runs are counted. Reported LLM totals are $0.3802537209 baseline and $0.4918990161 candidate; local runtime is unmetered. - Initial setup, packaging, cancelled/missing-cell recovery, callback test and relative-output attempts remain retained. No completed provider failure was rerun. Frozen measurement branches are unchanged by later canonical metadata maintenance. - Run `pnpm test:e2e:runner:stock-harness`, `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit`, and `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck`. Select `stock-harness` explicitly for paid execution; it is excluded from `--all`. Prior-head integration: `36aa4d81c49a1a8f6f04b1a068fae19aa901955f` replays this PR on merged hiring #14985 (`862a5758ba0e88a33232c1f1fa645e85c38a3113`), preserving the four explicit custom-CEO-bundle checks, minimal generic manual boundary, and both suites. The combined fixture catalog and hiring calibrations pass 67 assertions; exact-head stock prerequisites pass 599 assertions (598 TypeScript + 1 Rust), all six gates and retained-receipt verification, zero providers/source errors, fingerprint `a7f5a22d860a88fe20cce213c6d5e0004788f32c8363930729aea4fd740ad16d`. E2E typecheck and 26-cell stock discovery pass. Fresh current-head CI passes all 52 checks with two intentional skips, and fresh Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved review threads. The prior source-plan browser failure is retained: a deterministic process fixture replayed its last `fixture:plan` command on `chat_task_completed`, writing revision 2 with identical body after the approval handoff. This was not paid provider execution. Rebased current-head CI passes the same assertion without an old-head retry or a change to that browser fixture. The merged hiring change was measured separately on immutable matched unions, with this reduced/shared/operational context and native completion guidance held constant. [Complete original two-profile report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/f0512647656be78e48abd8c22a3078db8bf6bcd2/doc/plans/2026-10-02-hiring-template-live-comparison.md): [candidate](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37075466208) / [historical baseline](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37075469463), 705 provider-free prerequisites each. Both pairs are unchanged Fail → Fail on the exact-five count, with six core delivery checks passing all four cells; 28 actual successful runs include eight automatic completion wakes, zero retries, four successful cleanups. Source-read coverage is uncomparable, actual model charges unknown. Separately versioned provider-free accounting remains analytical work; original verdicts are preserved. This does not rerun or qualify the completed default-manual or native campaigns. ## Risks - Legacy ACP Claude's additional delivery loss is not closed by any later matched run and blocks the no-extra-failing-behavior merge criterion. Legacy document delivery may have relied on the prior manual/shared prompts. The early skill repair improves Claude in one trial; the later OpenCode pairs pass in both variants and cannot establish causality or robust recovery. Both original-case links remain deficient beneath the storage-only grade. The later issue-derived reference correction has only provider-free validation. Native finish/block descriptions must not be supplied to legacy agents. - The comparison holds merged native Codex fix #14920 constant; it cannot measure that fix's before/after task performance. - These bounded skill/context/chat workflows do not measure general coding quality. Unrepresented providers remain unqualified. - Saved manuals and old Codex sessions are not automatically migrated. Codex through ACP still has a separate base-instruction follow-up. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family as identified by this session. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed. The assistant used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and delegated PR/eval work. ## 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 (relevant suites and all three unchanged narrow reruns pass; complete-run timing failures retained in Verification) - [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 on the new repair head (prior-head checks retained above) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on the new repair head - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-03 12:32:42 -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
Dotta	560e7e48b5	feat(runner): add SDK and developer tooling (#12608) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner package already provides the production protocol and execution spine. > - Contributors still need stable SDK surfaces, deterministic test tools, and local inspection tools. > - Those surfaces share generated contracts and must change as one package boundary. > - This pull request adds the package-local SDK, labs, examples, and drift checks. > - The benefit is a reviewable developer platform that does not change application execution selection. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** `packages/paperclip-runner` — runner SDK, conformance tools, and developer tooling. **Problem or motivation** The production runner spine is present, but package consumers cannot build deterministic integrations, inspect sessions, or verify provider-neutral behavior through supported surfaces. **Proposed solution** Add browser, React, standalone, live-session, scenario, conformance, and evaluation surfaces. Add generated contract inventories and package-local verification scripts. Keep production application routing unchanged. **Alternatives considered** We considered splitting each generated catalog, SDK surface, and demo into separate pull requests. Those changes share exports, fixtures, and drift gates. Splitting them would create intermediate package states that do not build. **Roadmap alignment** No overlapping item appears in `ROADMAP.md`. This work extends the runner package that is already on `master`. ## What Changed - Add browser, React, standalone, live-session, and issue-thread SDK surfaces. - Add deterministic mock control-plane, scenario, conformance, replay, and evaluation tools. - Add bounded Codex, OpenCode, and ACPX development transports and fixtures. - Keep deferred managed-provider execution fail-closed. Persisted compatibility data remains readable. - Add generated capability inventories with their source files and drift checks. - Add examples, package documentation, browser checks, and clean-consumer checks. - Preserve the reviewed protocol bounds, replay compatibility aliases, process environment isolation, and semantic redaction limits. - Update the ACPX package patch that the existing workspace patch registry already tracks. - Do not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`, repository workflows, server runtime selection, or the application UI. ## Verification GitHub Actions is the verification authority for this pull request. The repository CI, package TypeScript and Rust checks, package tests, generated-output drift checks, browser checks, security scans, and Greptile review must pass on the exact head. Local test suites were not run because this series uses parallel GitHub Actions for verification. ## Risks This is a large greenfield package change. The main risks are public export drift, generated-output drift, and optional React consumer compatibility. Package boundary checks, clean-consumer checks, and browser tests cover those risks. Production adapter selection and server execution are outside this pull request. ## Stack 1. **This PR:** runner SDK and developer tooling. 2. [Codex production server integration](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12616). 3. [Provider-neutral task-thread UI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12617). ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, high-reasoning mode, with tool use and code execution. ## 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 following the feature request template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [ ] 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 risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-08-31 21:33:11 -05:00