2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	b3c2172d41	fix(evals): verify native protected-action outcomes (#18255) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work assigned to agents. > - Product E2E stories ask for useful user-facing results. > - Classic runner and deployed QA reuse the same service approve/decline task prompts. > - The service returns a receipt marker that belongs in a saved briefing document. > - State that destination explicitly and ask for the document link when complete. > - The deployed decline path also needs the same durable final-reply proof as Plan and Stop. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18222. Builds on the merged reply observer in #18248. **What happened?** The shared service tasks ask for titles and a “verification code” without specifying that the code belongs in the document or asking for its final link. A native QA attempt created its briefing but then repeatedly failed the completion tool’s array validation. Those invalid arguments remain a separate observed failure; the wording change does not establish their cause or relax validation. Source inspection also found that the declined-action oracle requires a projected comment even when the settled native thread renders a durable final message. **Expected behavior** Ask for page titles and the service receipt code in the saved briefing, then a document link. After a declined action, require the existing explanation-only fallback without another service call. **Steps to reproduce** Run the shared service-approve/service-decline stories through the classic runner or QA Product E2E adapter. ## What Changed - Clarify the natural-language task for both shared service stories: put page titles and service receipt code in the document and provide its link. - Use the reloaded run-bound final reply for QA service declines. Pass an explicit native receipt to the existing decline oracle; do not synthesize issue comments. Require the final native run to start after the saved decline and keep exact decision, truthful explanation, no unread marker, zero calls and unchanged connection checks. - Keep classic callers on their existing attributed-comment path. No internal tool instructions are added to the user prompt; ownership, service data and model/runtime limits stay strict. ## Verification - Decline regression observed RED: two cases reject a valid saved native explanation without projected comments. After the repair, 79 focused tests passed across native reply, decline guidance, agent evidence and journey contracts. A two-successful-run control rejects the earlier receipt and accepts the later one. Negatives cover stale/wrong run, wrong agent/task, missing final proof, summary/unsettled/hidden output, false explanations and unread service data. - Product E2E TypeScript and `git diff --check` passed. - Live protected-action qualification is required after merging this and the companion private service/cleanup fixes. The previous failed result remains failed; this is a bounded task-clarity experiment, not a claimed model or completion-schema repair. - Current-head Greptile and Paperclip reviews are 5/5 with zero open threads. CI initially failed the unrelated agent-chat-projects cleanup POST with a PostgreSQL lock timeout after its assertions completed. One bounded retry passed on unchanged source; all current-head gates passed at `64bc169e147290ed4dbaa18221e0268362ce81ee`. The original failing attempt and its logs remain available. The task-clarity change is still a bounded experiment; the observer repair addresses a demonstrated storage-assumption defect. ## Risks A clearer task can still fail with the selected model. All acceptance checks and completion input validation remain strict; a saved briefing alone cannot qualify the complete journey. Only test prompts and test evidence code change. Missing or contradictory native evidence fails closed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this session. Used reasoning, source editing, shell execution and test inspection. ## 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>	2026-10-29 22:14:37 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2badf8a4a5	fix(evals): verify native QA replies on the reloaded task thread (#18248) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents that do work for users. > - Product E2E journeys check user outcomes on real deployments. > - Native task threads can render saved final replies from a settled run. > - The new QA Plan and Stop checks looked only for agent comments. > - Both flows reached the requested terminal state and showed the correct reply, but that storage assumption rejected them. > - This PR checks the reloaded visible reply and binds it to the final successful run. Explicit presentation decisions remain authoritative. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18222 and #18244. **What happened?** The deployed Plan journey completed all three native runs, including revision and approval. Stop completed native cancellation, resource release and a new direction. Their final-answer checks failed because the comments endpoint did not contain the rendered native reply. The original failed grades remain unchanged. **Expected behavior** Require exactly one correct visible final answer after reload, attributed to the final successful owned run. Reject an earlier run, progress text, hidden content, duplicate answers or a cancelled run. If its selected completion comment is projected, require that comment and matching author/run/text. Otherwise require a single durable final assistant message and its settled native final-response anchor. **Steps to reproduce** Run the Plan or Stop journey on a native deployment whose task thread renders the settled run before a completion comment is projected. ## What Changed - Add a narrow reply observer over the existing task-thread hooks. It reloads the page and refreshes saved run/comment metadata while waiting. - Bind native replies to a validated durable final assistant event and the successful run's settled final-response anchor. Require the selected comment when projected; support pending or suppressed projection without accepting a summary fallback. Accept payload and item-normalized finals, rejecting contradictory fields. - Use the observer for Plan completion and Stop's new direction. Keep existing run counts, deployment binding, cancellation and artifact checks. - Add negative grading tests, include the helper in the definition hash, and document its evidence contract. Classic protocol comment matchers are unchanged. ## Verification - 63 focused tests passed across native reply evidence, agent evidence and journey contracts. - Product E2E TypeScript passed. The reply observer uses the remaining journey deadline and backs off polling. - Live Plan and Stop attempts exposed this grading failure. Their original outcomes remain failed; fresh qualification is required after merge. - Full current-head CI passed at `40840ed742977853630d733292461ad7003fc7fb`; Greptile and Paperclip Review both scored 5/5, with zero unresolved review threads. ## Risks The observer depends on existing task-thread test hooks and run anchors. Missing or changed hooks fail closed. It reads rendered user-facing text; a finish summary alone cannot satisfy it. Native event provenance, run ownership and exact reply equality are required. No backend, model, provider, budget or cancellation policy changes are included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this session. Used reasoning, source editing, shell execution and test inspection. ## 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>	2026-10-29 21:35:15 -05:00