Encrypt and fsync replacement OAuth tokens before vault/grant/activity writes. Retry failed saves from the journal without consuming the old refresh token again; retain durable recovery through rollback, commit failures, restart, and lost commit responses. Fence replay against revocation and reconnect.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses issues to organize work for AI agents.
> - Paperclip creates a provisional issue title from the issue
description.
> - A description can start with a Markdown image or other Markdown
syntax.
> - The old title logic truncated the raw Markdown source.
> - This pull request parses Markdown before it truncates the title.
> - The benefit is a short and readable provisional title.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
When an issue description started with a Markdown image, Paperclip used
the raw image syntax and URL in the provisional title. Other common
Markdown markers could also appear in the title.
**Expected behavior**
Paperclip must remove Markdown syntax before it creates the
120-character provisional title. It must keep useful text, such as link
labels and inline code content.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create an issue without an explicit title.
2. Start the issue description with a Markdown image.
3. Add Markdown text after the image.
4. Observe that the provisional title contains raw Markdown syntax or an
image URL.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The problem reproduces on `master` before this change.
**Deployment mode**
Local development with the embedded PGlite database.
## What Changed
- Parse the description and remove image nodes before title generation.
- Convert the remaining Markdown to plain text before the 120-character
limit.
- Keep link labels, inline code, and identifier punctuation.
- Use image alt text, or `Image`, for an image-only description.
- Fall back to a simple 120-character title if Markdown parsing or
conversion fails.
- Add regression tests for image and inline-code titles, parser
failures, and text-conversion failures.
## Verification
- `./node_modules/.bin/vitest run
server/src/__tests__/task-title-routes.test.ts`
- `./node_modules/.bin/tsc -p server/tsconfig.json --noEmit`
- Full GitHub CI matrix passed on commit
`663f3a0517c9e450f174b6c37970756457067ba5`.
- Greptile reviewed the latest commit with a 5/5 confidence score and no
unresolved findings.
## Risks
- Low risk. This change only affects generated provisional titles. It
does not change explicit titles or full issue descriptions.
- The implementation uses the Markdown parser and plain-text converter
that are already present in the server.
> This is a focused bug fix. It does not add planned core work from
`ROADMAP.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The run used reasoning, tool use, code
execution, and repository access. The runtime 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>
## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip lets people steer and recover AI-agent conversations.
> - Recovery eligibility depends on retained cancellation receipts.
> - Run presentation intentionally omits result JSON on SQL_ASCII
databases and reduces oversized output.
> - Retry and the saved-input sweep mistakenly used that presentation
read for admission.
> - The banner could offer Retry while the endpoint rejected the same
stopped run.
> - Read the narrow execution-evidence fields for internal admission and
keep normal presentation unchanged.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #15024 and #15015. Searched existing recovery and redaction PRs; no
duplicate fix found.
**What happened?**
On a SQL_ASCII instance, a verified pre-dispatch review-wait
cancellation offers Retry in the recovery notice. Clicking it returns an
eligibility conflict, and a saved user message remains deferred. The
notice reads the retained database receipt, but the endpoint and sweep
read a presentation projection where `resultJson` is null.
**Expected behavior**
Retry and saved user input use the recorded execution evidence and
ordinary admission gates, independent of presentation redaction. Public
run reads retain their existing encoding and output-size protections.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Record a cancelled, unclaimed review-wait continuation and its
recovery hold.
2. Use the SQL_ASCII presentation projection, where run result JSON is
omitted.
3. Click Retry or save a new user message and let the recovery sweep
inspect it.
4. Verify a fresh turn starts once, with no replay of consumed input.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on `9ae3d8db3`.
**Deployment mode**
Authenticated private self-hosted server with a SQL_ASCII database.
## What Changed
- Add an explicit internal read of cancellation, startup, review-wait,
tool-inventory, and Stop evidence; omit provider diagnostics.
- Use that read in the Retry route, wakeup validation, and saved-input
continuation checks.
- Preserve the distinction between absent result JSON and an
unrecognized stored result.
- Cover the reproduced SQL_ASCII Retry and saved-input failures,
retained public redaction, native Stop behavior, and excluded provider
output.
- Document the presentation and admission distinction.
## Verification
- Red: four selected assertions fail before the fix, including the
SQL_ASCII eligibility conflict and saved input remaining deferred.
- Targeted green regressions and existing native Stop cases pass.
- Workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass.
- All 626 affected recovery, continuation, and route tests pass,
including 22 focused admission and native Stop cases. Current-head CI
has 54 passing gates and 2 skipped optional Storybook checks. Greptile
reviewed `9b94af91e295a4e8007dfc6bff6a8d532d945e36` at 5/5 with no
findings or open review threads. No complete local monolithic pass is
claimed; the complete suite runs in sharded CI.
## Risks
Admission still checks recorded process and controller ownership,
provider events, cleanup, company scope, user authority, pending
decisions, and task holds. The evidence projection must retain every
field used by these eligibility predicates; existing native Stop cases
guard against dropping its acknowledgement receipt. No schema,
dependency, UI, or public response change.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, an agent based on GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and
context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning,
repository tools, code execution, and browser 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The queued-run gate can cancel a continuation that must wait for
review.
> - This cancellation happens before execution authority or a provider
starts.
> - Recovery currently treats the gate receipt as unknown provider
execution.
> - That mistake blocks a conversation after a successful reply and
hides Retry.
> - This pull request recognizes only the recorded, unclaimed
review-wait state.
> - Review waits keep their normal disposition path, and new user input
can recover older false holds.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #15015, #15020, and #15022. Related #11614 narrows the review
posture that causes cancellation; this change corrects recovery after a
valid cancellation.
**What happened?**
After a successful agent reply, the queued-run gate cancelled an
automatic continuation with `issue_continuation_waiting_on_review`. The
gate retained `timeoutSource: stale_queued_run_gate` and a matching stop
reason. No execution authority or provider started. Recovery still
created an unknown-action hold, moved the task to Blocked, and hid
Retry.
**Expected behavior**
Use normal review-wait disposition repair for this recorded state. Allow
Retry, a new user message, or saved undelivered input to recover an
older false hold after ordinary admission checks pass. Preserve the
cancelled run and do not replay its input.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Finish an agent turn on an open task that has a real review target.
2. Let the automatic continuation reach the queued-run review gate.
3. Refresh after the cancelled run is checked by recovery.
4. Confirm a review wait is handled as a wait rather than unknown
provider work.
5. Reproduce an older false hold for the same receipt, then request
Retry or send a new message.
6. Confirm only one fresh turn starts, and contradictory execution or
cleanup evidence retains the hold.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on `215586d127`.
**Deployment mode**
Authenticated private self-hosted server, built from source.
## What Changed
- Recognize the exact review-wait dispatch receipt only while all
execution claims remain unset.
- Exempt recovery only after checking retained launch and provider
events, coordinators, and environment cleanup. Keep the synchronous
classifier conservative without that database proof.
- Apply the verified classification to automatic recovery, heartbeat
retries, and stranded-queue release, so saved user input starts once.
- Reuse guarded startup admission for Retry, new input, and saved input
on older false holds.
- Show a precise review-wait notice and keep continuation guidance
consistent with Retry availability.
- Verify provider events, launch events, coordinators, and cleanup
before admission.
- Add five initial red regressions, three additional red recovery
evidence regressions, concurrent saved-input coverage, and negative
evidence checks.
- Document the review-wait contract.
## Verification
- Red: five regressions fail on unchanged master. Existing review-wait
and contradictory-evidence cases still pass.
- Workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` passes.
- All 752 affected recovery, continuation, queue, classification, and
retry-scheduling tests pass.
- Three additional review regressions failed before the database proof
was added; all 12 focused review-wait cases then pass.
- Workspace `pnpm build` passes.
- Saved-input promotion and recovery notice regressions fail before
their fixes and pass afterward.
- Current-head CI has 54 passing checks and 2 skipped optional Storybook
checks. Greptile reviewed `0bf1437110e1617ae4544afa41f4319eac763dba` at
5/5 with zero open findings. The complete suite runs in sharded CI. No
complete local monolithic pass is claimed; an earlier long run was
stopped, and its unrelated failing case passed in isolation.
## Risks
The error code alone cannot establish that no provider started. This
exception also requires the server gate receipt, matching stop reason,
and null execution authority fields. User admission separately checks
coordinator, launch and provider events, environment cleanup, pending
decisions, ownership, task holds, budget, and active execution. No
migration or dependency change.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, an agent based on GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and
context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning,
repository tools, code execution, and browser 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - A task conversation must let a user guide a running agent and resume
stopped work.
> - The active run owns its input protocol, even when the user changes
the next model or effort.
> - Queue delivery waits for a provider receipt, which must be able to
persist during the request.
> - A stopped startup also needs a clear user action that passes normal
task admission.
> - This pull request fixes steering delivery, makes queue actions
immediate, and restores explicit continuation.
> - The benefit is a responsive conversation that can recover without
losing saved input.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A queued message could change from Steer to Interrupt while a native run
prepared. A steer request could wait on its own database lock and fail
to deliver. A stopped startup could then leave the conversation without
a working Retry or message continuation. Interrupt also waited for the
server and showed a toast.
**Expected behavior**
The active run keeps its input protocol. Steer delivers input to that
run. Steer and Interrupt clear the submitted queue rows and show the
input in the conversation immediately. Failed delivery restores the
latest queue with an inline error. An eligible stopped run offers Retry,
and authenticated user input can start a fresh turn through normal task
admission.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a task with a native Paperclip Runner.
2. Change the selected model or effort while that run prepares.
3. Queue a message and press Steer.
4. Observe the provider receipt and queue state during the request.
5. Stop a startup before its provider process begins, then try Retry or
send a new message.
6. Repeat queued delivery with a legacy runner and press Interrupt.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on the parent of this branch, `59c07ede7`.
**Deployment mode**
Authenticated private deployment. The fixes also cover local task
conversations.
Related work: Refs #12834, Refs #13354, Refs #13275. The open refactor
in #13160 moves the same queue route; it does not fix the receipt lock
or stopped-run continuation addressed here.
## What Changed
- Select queue behavior from the active run's immutable dispatch and
runtime resolution.
- Leave the run row unlocked during provider acknowledgement, then lock
and read it before merging the receipt.
- Retain queued input if the target run stops during that wait. Keep
inline delivery errors visible after empty queue updates.
- Permit exact Retry and authenticated continuation after verified
native startup cancellation. Preserve pause, approval, budget,
ownership, and process-stop gates.
- Carry undelivered native queue input into a fresh turn once the old
execution is confirmed stopped.
- Show Steer and Interrupt input in the conversation and clear submitted
composer rows immediately. Restore the latest queue inline on failure.
Remove delivery toasts.
- Keep optimistic delivery stable across stale polls, empty queues, and
paginated history. Preserve classic Interrupt error handling.
- Document recovery and optimistic delivery behavior. Add regression
tests across server, shared queue projection, and UI boundaries.
## Verification
- Red-green regression tests reproduced the queue protocol, receipt
lock, stopped-startup continuation, and optimistic delivery failures.
- The focused server route, continuation, queue, and runner boundary
suites passed during implementation.
- The queue-route suite passes with 78 tests. The three complete
conversation UI suites pass with 347 tests.
- UI typecheck, production build, and `pnpm check:token-gates` pass.
- Workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. The local
monolithic `pnpm test:run` is still running; remote CI verifies the
complete suite on the latest commit.
- All CI gates pass on `bd9031ad56abfcde13d13a13488c1b9217c2fd3a`,
including the full test shards, runner verification, browser E2E,
typecheck, release registry, and canary dry run.
- Greptile reports 5/5 for that commit. Both review threads are
resolved.
## Risks
This changes queue display and explicit continuation admission. The UI
must restore rejected delivery without losing other-session edits. The
server must preserve concurrent provider result updates and must not
resume a process whose stop is uncertain. Focused tests cover these
boundaries. This change has no database migration.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, an agent based on GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and
context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning,
repository tools, code execution, and browser 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>
Use provider terminal evidence for completeness; an OpenCode successful EOF closes its step-based stream. Preserve immutable snapshots and propagate partial completeness through final results.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
