Commit Graph
2 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
DottaandPaperclip 72ff3a9f27 Measure native tool context and expand bounded workflow evals (#15218)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages persistent agents and their assigned work.
> - Agents receive both fixed instructions and tool definitions.
> - Moving a procedure into a tool description still adds model context.
> - We need to measure the complete delivered catalog and test real
outcomes.
> - The tested reductions saved little space and introduced failing
outcomes.
> - This PR keeps measurement, bounded eval coverage and the original
evidence.
> - Production prompts, tools and runtime behavior stay unchanged.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs: #15151, #14961, #14948, #14985.

This adds the measurement and eval coverage needed to assess further
native
instruction changes. The attempted hiring and dependency reduction
failed
qualification and is excluded from the final diff.

## What Changed

- Measure the actual standard-mode tool authority, including all 39
tools and their input schemas. Capture scripted native start, resume and
continuation payloads and the OpenCode MCP declaration list.
- Add OpenCode to the two explicit-only local hiring/reuse and
delegation/feedback stories. Preserve the original task requests and
independent oracles.
- Apply one attempt per selected story and explicit company and
lead-agent budget stops.
- Select managed hiring credentials from the requested profile,
including OpenRouter.
- Run the existing Node test files under Node instead of collecting them
as Vitest suites.
- Retain sanitized comparison reports, original failed grades, source
hashes and evidence gaps.

## Verification

Final source: `2e7cef78eef7cdfe02265e0dcb03e855b8e50bd8`. Local
verification passes:

- Full repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`.
- Eval-support unit tests: 1,252 Vitest checks and 128 Node checks.
- Eval TypeScript check and six final-source measurement tests. All 36
normalized
components across nine scripted deliveries and the OpenCode MCP catalog
match
the baseline exactly; the complete standing projection is 49,200 bytes.

Fresh review of this exact head is [5/5 with no remaining
findings](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15218#issuecomment-5996723170);
all three review threads are resolved.
[Final-head
CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37354539126)
passes all 47 jobs, including repository typecheck, build, tests, runner
checks,
browser shards and the canary check. One initial annotation-test timeout
is
retained in attempt 1; its seven-test suite passed locally, and the
affected
CI lane passed on one targeted retry. No source or paid eval rerun was
needed.

Both ready-transition security scans passed with zero annotations. The
PR is
out of draft and conflict-free. GitHub still requires code-owner
approval for
the `package.json` test-script change; its requested reviewers are
already set.

A byte-for-byte comparison against master context
`a65ca0950834a85bb93bcc4b4042ecacdebfef53` confirms no production
changes under
`packages/` or production `server/` paths. The only server addition is a
measurement test. No new paid rerun is needed to compare unchanged
production
bytes. This does not claim that existing product defects have been
fixed.

The rejected corrected experiment had baseline **5 PASS / 1 FAIL** and
candidate
**3 PASS / 3 FAIL**, including **two newly failing pairs**. The later
readiness
experiment had candidate **3 PASS / 3 FAIL** and baseline **3 PASS / 2
FAIL / one
setup cell without a behavioral grade**. Its five comparable pairs had
two new
failures, two new passes and one unchanged pass. The missing baseline
Codex
cell never reached its provider step because Docker setup timed out.

The observed missing behaviors include parent continuation, waiting for
the
latest child revision, revised ZIP delivery and OpenCode credential
persistence.
Those failures remain failures. Source review and passing CI do not
regrade them.
The original reduction saved 460 bytes; its first repair saved only 125
bytes,
and the larger unqualified runtime repair increased the full projection.
None
of those production changes is shipped here.

Read the
[report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/2e7cef78eef7cdfe02265e0dcb03e855b8e50bd8/doc/plans/2026-10-05-native-procedure-guidance.md)
and its linked sanitized receipts for exact
sources, original campaign links, pair-level results and evidence
limitations.

## Risks

- Full-catalog bytes are not model tokens, invoices, private vendor
prompts, lazy-loading behavior or truncation proof.
- The two stories are explicit-only and do not prove general coding
quality or arbitrary resume behavior. Single trials do not establish
causation or performance trends.
- The retained OpenCode candidate credential guard failed. Cleanup
removed the original provider database, so the precise persistence
mechanism remains unknown. The guard is unchanged.
- ACPX provider-execution IDs lack proven host-call mapping. No
extra-work or feedback-consumption claim is inferred by matching names,
order or counts.
- PostgreSQL cannot start locally while the host's shared-memory slots
are exhausted. Hosted CI must supply the full database checks; the full
local database suite is not claimed green.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository tools and code execution.
The exact deployment model ID and context-window limit are not exposed
in this session.

## Checklist

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

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-05 20:03:35 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip a386a59998 Reduce repeated native completion guidance and preserve final replies (#15151)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Native agents receive task constraints and completion tools from
Paperclip.
> - Completion tools already define the procedure for reporting a
result.
> - Repeated procedure text adds instructions to each full task turn.
> - The final reply must still explain a blocker and link a saved
document.
> - This pull request removes repeated procedure text and keeps these
visible outcome requirements explicit.
> - A document receipt supplies the exact link, and stricter evals check
the persisted reply and browser navigation.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs: #14961. Related: #14948 and #15007.

**What happened?**

Native task envelopes repeat completion procedure text. A reduced
envelope needs explicit final-reply requirements. The `write_document`
receipt also lacks a canonical document link.

**Expected behavior**

Keep the completion tools as the source of procedure details. Require
one accepted completion result before the final reply. A blocked reply
must explain the reason, owner and unblock action. A document reply must
contain a working link to the saved document.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Run the native assigned-skill document case and native blocker case.
2. Inspect the run-attributed provider final and its persisted comment.
3. Check the blocker explanation or open the final reply's document
link.

## What Changed

- Remove repeated completion procedure text from the native task
constraints and backend instructions.
- Keep explicit blocker and document-link requirements in full task
turns.
- Return a company/task-scoped `documentHref` from `write_document`.
Preserve the link in the idempotent mutation receipt.
- Repeat canonical links for this run's current saved revisions in
accepted completion feedback. Give blocked providers final-response
guidance for the cause, owner and unblock action.
- Keep internal document/comment anchors when Markdown issue links load
cached issue details.
- Add a manual six-cell comparison suite with strict source, build,
default-instruction and budget admission.
- Capture eighteen shared runnerd RPC projections and six direct
OpenCode HTTP projections across start, resume and continuation phases,
using scripted local transports and no provider execution.
- Apply v3 checks only to the manual instruction comparison; preserve v2
checks for the existing native completion suite. Check the actual
persisted blocker reason and exact saved-document link. Click the
rendered document link and check the original content marker in the
classic document card or the new document tab.
- Forward exact OpenCode finishing calls through the controller. Wait
for acceptance, keep accepted feedback and concrete rejection text, and
reject malformed responses. Preserve ordinary dynamic-tool response
handling.
- Settle the completion decision and tool response before mapping a
racing idle/error/abort event or handling explicit close/interruption.
Reject a concurrent finishing call before controller admission.
- Add a provider-free regression through real runnerd, the OpenCode
proxy and a fake provider. Reject the first completion, accept the
corrected report in the same turn, and propose one result.
- Keep all original verdicts unchanged. Treat replay under new checks as
separate diagnostics.

## Verification

- `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass locally.
- Native document-authority tests pass, including company/run
authorization and idempotent replay.
- Native runtime-context, backend and measurement tests pass.
- Final-answer calibration, protocol scoring, source-admission and
catalog tests pass. Wrong reasons, absent links and wrong link targets
fail.
- `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` passes. Discovery lists exactly six
single-attempt local cells with the declared models.
- Exported `prepareNativeInstructionPreflight` then
`verifyNativeInstructionPreflight` pass on this clean committed source.
They build locally and make zero provider calls.
- Corrective live confirmation is incomplete. Source 3a7349d passed both
Claude and both Codex cases. OpenCode saved the correct document but
omitted its final link; its blocker case was canceled before paid
execution. Preserve this failure. The e171282 confirmation was stopped
during build after fresh review found a completion-settlement race; it
executed zero providers. Source c3e0cb303 fixes that race. Two affected
OpenCode cases await fresh review and one bounded confirmation; earlier
results remain attributed to their original source.
- OpenCode proxy parsing, driver, factory and input tests: 81 pass
across retained focused runs, including six settlement races.
Evaluator/scoring/admission checks: 122 pass. The real proxy regression
passes. Fresh local prepare then verify passes with 18 shared and 6
direct scripted captures, fresh SDK/Rust builds and zero providers.
- The full local suite recorded two failures: a webhook timeout and a
Git-scan load count mismatch. Both files pass in isolation with
unchanged assertions/time budgets; preserve the original failure log.
Fresh c3e0cb303 CI and review are pending. This PR remains draft.

## Risks

- Final-answer wording can vary by provider. The checks cover the
declared release-access blocker and saved document fixture, not general
answer quality.
- A single trial does not establish general equivalence, cause, speed,
cost or live resume behavior.
- `documentHref` is an additive receipt field. It points to the current
saved document, not an immutable historical revision. Replaying an older
receipt does not fabricate a new link.
- The correction adds four production paths for document receipts,
accepted completion feedback and UI navigation, plus four OpenCode
controller/proxy paths, beyond the original three instruction paths.
Completion rejection must remain repairable; the production-boundary
regression covers it.
- Preserve the frozen comparison context for live measurement. A
merge-tree check against current master is clean. Do not relabel earlier
live results as results from a later source tree.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID and context
window are unavailable in this session. Capabilities used: reasoning,
code editing, shell execution, test authoring and evidence review.

## 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
- [ ] 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>
2026-10-05 08:10:14 -05:00