mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
master
6
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 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
|
3f4f8b37ba |
fix: grade Codex clarification and refusal outcomes from evidence (#14570)
Grade clarification lists, obsolete unstarted wakes, and refusal cancellation from persisted evidence. Preserve execution and ownership assertions, add boundary regressions, and version the affected eval definitions. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f56aee5423 |
fix(evals): capture complete durable run event streams (#13977)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and records their durable work outcomes. > - Product E2E checks those outcomes through the browser and public API. > - A successful long run can emit more than 1,000 durable events. > - The harness read one page and missed the later completion evidence. > - This pull request reads every page before it checks runtime invariants. > - Invalid or incomplete capture still fails. A missing page cannot produce a pass. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #13882 (Grok qualification). A duplicate search found no existing event-pagination fix. **What happened?** The local structured-question case in [campaign 36071063537](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36071063537) completed the task and passed its six outcome matchers. It failed native runtime invariants because the capture contained exactly 1,000 events. The last captured event preceded the run's completion by more than a minute. The API caps each response at 1,000 rows. The harness did not request the next page. **Expected behavior** Read the complete durable event stream through the public API before checking semantic-result and terminal-event counts. Reject incomplete or malformed evidence. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Complete a native task that emits more than 1,000 durable events. 2. Place the semantic-result and terminal events after row 1,000. 3. Capture the run with the Product E2E harness. 4. Before this fix, the invariant checker sees only the first page. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed at `4196a4cd76db434854b679035e4146c7f69689ce`. The same single-page capture exists on master. The original failed result remains unchanged; missing historical tail evidence is not reconstructed or graded as a pass. ## What Changed - Add a bounded event collector that advances through the public `afterSeq` cursor. - Use it for task success/failure evidence and shared chat run evidence. - Reject invalid pages, missing or non-increasing sequence numbers, repeated cursors, failed later requests, and an exhausted page limit. - Test completion events beyond the first page, exact page boundaries, and malformed evidence. - Correct the existing Everyday catalog test from 38 to the maintained 47 cells. The suite stays explicit-only. - Document the complete-capture requirement and its bound. ## Verification - Product harness typecheck passes. - The full credential-free harness suite passed 477 tests. After adding the chat integration regression, all 34 chat evidence tests pass. - Seventeen pagination tests cover the valid tail and malformed-evidence cases. - `git diff --check` passes. - [Full repository CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36080683422) passes at `aed6f79c089226be79e75dcf390969561ec4f787`: 52 successful checks and two intentional skips, including Rust, typecheck, build, server tests, and browser shards. Greptile gives this exact head 5/5 with no findings. No local Docker, Rust build, browser suite, or model invocation was used for this change. - [Live Grok requalification](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36080870743) is running on combined source `1b0551bb7c8de3c54f4bee64dbe2c88328b3645e`, with the runner, scheduler, and evidence fixes. Its full credential-free harness passes all 493 tests and typecheck. Live results are pending; the original campaign remains a failed measurement. ## Risks Long runs need more read-only API requests and larger private evidence files. Capture stops with an explicit error after 100 full pages. This changes neither production APIs nor provider behavior. It does not relax an invariant or change a historical grade. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository tools and code execution. The exact serving identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` 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
|
43acbcc398 |
fix(runner): preserve sessions and complete question and approval continuations (#13655)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The native runner connects task state to provider sessions. > - Follow-up turns must retain provider memory and carry new user direction. > - Lost session IDs caused repeated context and extra input tokens. > - Native question answers and approval races could leave valid work blocked. > - This pull request repairs those paths and adds regression coverage. > - Agents can continue accepted work without repeating the conversation or losing the user's answer. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13574. That merged PR shortened continuation prompts and moved question instructions into tool documentation. This change preserves sessions and fixes failures exposed by broader testing. Related runtime work: #13408 and #13410. **What happened?** Native follow-up turns could lose the provider session ID. Completion guidance could replace the original task with its latest comment. Claude native questions could remain pending after the user answered. Approval during a running tool call could suspend the run before the tool response arrived. Onboarding and chat handoff instructions also caused repeated planning or missing plan documents. **Expected behavior** Reuse a valid provider session. Send only new events when that session already has the history. Preserve the task requirements and apply later user direction. Store the question answer and deliver it to the waiting run. Finish governed tool responses before suspending. Execute the accepted plan without asking for the same approval again. **Steps to reproduce** Run the continuation, local-session-integrity, first-task, and agent-chat suites with native Codex and Claude. Include provider-question-bridge, accept-while-running, and plan-handoff. **Paperclip version or commit** This branch is based on master |
||
|
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> |