119 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	985d3b12b6	fix(runner): explain rejected task monitor arguments (#16868) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents use task monitors to resume work after a future check. > - The runner rejects monitor arguments that fail the tool schema. > - It returned a generic error with no field or repair guidance. > - An agent could treat a repairable call as a scheduling outage and block its task. > - This pull request adds safe repair guidance and shows the nested request shape. > - Agents can correct the call and confirm a saved schedule before they yield. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15446, #16686. **What happened?** A rejected native `set_task_monitor` call returned `invalid_tool_call` with only “Paperclip rejected this semantic tool call.” The agent could not identify the invalid field. A retry could fail again and leave unfinished work without a scheduled wake. **Expected behavior** Reject invalid arguments before any mutation. Give the provider bounded schema locations and clear repair guidance. A corrected call must save a monitor and allow one wake without duplicate effects. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Call `set_task_monitor` with `idempotencyKey`, `nextCheckAt`, and `notes` at the top level. 2. The schema rejects the call because scheduling fields belong inside `monitor`. 3. Before this change, the provider received no guidance about the required shape. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against master `35c75b56d4` with a failing Rust regression. **Deployment mode** Source checkout. This affects the native runner tool bridge. ## What Changed - Add monitor-specific repair guidance to the runner's existing safe schema error path. - Keep feedback within 512 bytes and omit submitted values and unknown field names. - Show the nested monitor request in the production tool description. Refresh generated contracts and catalog identities. - Test flat and nested invalid input, private value handling, and unchanged authorization errors. - Test rejection, correction with the same key, saved schedule and audit, receipt replay, and one timer wake with real PostgreSQL and the native tool authority. - Update execution documentation and the task verification recipes. ## Verification - Red/green: the Rust provider error regression failed on master because monitor repair guidance was absent. It passed after the fix. - Passed: 29 PostgreSQL monitor and scheduler integration tests. These use the real tool authority and scheduler, with a no-op process agent for wake delivery. - Passed: the native Codex server vertical-slice test. It runs the rebuilt Runner binary with a fake provider and checks durable results and session resume. - Passed: map structure checks, Rust formatting, and `git diff --check`. - Passed locally: full repository `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and all 392 Rust library unit tests. - Passed on commit `3b667ad24763c1828edd48f56ef7a10766aeb946`: [CI run 39290889768](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39290889768), including all server, Runner, serialized, browser, typecheck, build, and canary gates. Across the PR, 56 checks passed and four conditional checks were skipped. No check remains pending or failed. - Greptile: 5/5 on that exact commit. The check concluded success, with no review comments or unresolved threads. - The duplicate local `pnpm test:run` attempt did not complete. It was stopped after the full CI suite passed; it is not counted as a local full-suite pass. - The first PostgreSQL attempt could not bind localhost inside the shell sandbox. It passed with normal localhost access. The first broader Rust attempt had 37 socket-permission failures and 355 passes; all 392 passed with localhost access and no code change. - Live model recovery was not run. Local execution policy did not authorize an extra acceptance run through the signed-in provider account. This PR does not include a deployment or recovery of an existing task. ## Risks - Error feedback must not reveal submitted values. Tests cover private values, unknown keys, nested constraints, length bounds, and unchanged generic authorization errors. - This changes guidance only. It does not relax the schema, retry calls automatically, or change scheduling authority. - A new runner binary and refreshed provider contract must reach the target instance before agents receive this guidance. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact runtime suffix 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>	2026-10-19 12:37:28 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d20cb69ce5	fix(heartbeat): preserve active retries when comments arrive (#16855) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their work. > - Heartbeat retries preserve task ownership after a recoverable failure. > - The issue read model includes retries that are scheduled, queued, or running. > - The human comment route treated every retry in that model as parked work. > - A normal status comment could therefore cancel a running continuation and return its task to Todo. > - This pull request limits comment supersession to parked retries and checks that state at the cancellation fence. > - The agent can keep working when a person adds context. Explicit Stop and Interrupt remain available. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A Board comment on an in-progress task cancelled its running recovery continuation. The handler read a live retry from `getCurrentScheduledRetry` but did not check its status. The cancellation also forced workspace recovery when copy-back did not complete. **Expected behavior** A comment must preserve queued and running execution. Only a retry that is still `scheduled_retry` may be superseded. If promotion wins the race, the comment must keep the task in progress and follow the normal wake path. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let a task retry advance from `scheduled_retry` to `running`. 2. Keep its retry reason and source run identity in the stored row. 3. Post a normal human comment, without an Interrupt request. 4. Observe the old handler cancel the run and move the task to Todo. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master base `9966f31bee`. The staging incident served `f3cd3f4ea89539b68410841d39ec15a5c626007f`. **Deployment mode** Staging server with a remote runner. The defect is in the core comment and cancellation path. Refs #16835 and #16843. Those repairs cover runner health and workspace preservation. This change prevents a normal comment from requesting the wrong cancellation. Related #9732 promotes human wakes on parked retries; it does not protect a retry that is already running. ## What Changed - Check the live retry status in both comment routes: POST comments and PATCH issue with a comment. - Add an optional expected-status fence to cancellation. A concurrent promotion or terminal outcome returns a no-op result. - Make due-retry promotion honor a cancellation claim under its issue and run row locks. A scheduler cannot promote work after cancellation has won. - Finish persisted cancellations of parked retries through the existing startup and periodic recovery sweep. Preserve their original request and retry a failed settlement without starting provider work. - Keep the task active when guarded cancellation does not win. Do not record a cancellation that did not occur. - Add route regressions, real PostgreSQL race tests, and pending-retry and explicit Stop safety coverage. - Exercise both normal HTTP comment routes with real services, stored Board membership, PostgreSQL, and a live child process. Assert that the process can still perform work, the task keeps its original execution, and no second executor starts. - Document the comment supersession contract and update the task feature/access maps with the local regression coverage and deployed acceptance recipe. ## Verification - Before the fix, all four POST/PATCH regressions cancelled queued or running work. - Before the fix, the real PostgreSQL race test cancelled a retry that became running after lookup. - The comment-route suite passes **103 tests**. The final dispatch, cancellation, restart recovery and HTTP/live-process suites pass **119 tests**, for **222 affected tests** across these runs. They cover comment delivery, both sides of the promotion race, concurrent terminal outcomes, pending retries, explicit Stop, and a live process that can continue work. - Command: `node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/services/heartbeat/run-control.test.ts`. - The normal HTTP/live-process acceptance suite passes all **14 tests**, including both comment endpoints with stored Board membership and deterministic wakeup teardown. - Review exposed a second race after the cancellation claim. Its new PostgreSQL test failed before the dispatch guard with `promoted` and passes afterward with `not_promoted`, followed by completed cancellation. - A real PostgreSQL constraint interrupts the terminal cancellation write after its intent commits. The assembled recovery service failed to settle that row before the repair. Afterward a fresh service settles it, clears its task lock, cancels its saved wake, preserves the original request and leaves unrelated parked retries alone. A repeated database failure preserves the intent for a later successful sweep; a second successful sweep adds no duplicate event. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. Server typecheck and build pass again after the final server-only review fix. A local full-suite attempt started on `f8773bf` did not return an overall result; its log is preserved and no local full-suite pass is claimed. The new recovery change passes the focused suites and fresh server typecheck/build. Latest-head CI on `8f928adee67c089e1ac405d2ad3b169eedb8da27` is green: the full PR workflow and commitperclip review passed; only the two optional Storybook jobs skipped. - Greptile reviewed final head `8f928adee67c089e1ac405d2ad3b169eedb8da27` at **5/5**, with no unresolved findings. All actual latest-head CI checks passed; the two optional Storybook jobs skipped. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes after the map updates (34 areas, 172 capability IDs); it checks structure only. - Fixed-revision staging acceptance is pending deployment. The original workspace remains held and its latest source checkpoint is backed up and verified. ## Risks - A promoted retry must keep its execution and ownership when a comment arrives. The database status predicate and route no-op handling enforce this at the race boundary. - A cancellation intent must prevent promotion without leaving work parked forever after a restart. The recovery sweep consumes at most 20 such intents per pass through guarded cancellation, and a failed settlement keeps its intent for retry. - A parked retry must still accept fresh instructions. Its existing cancellation and wake behavior remains covered. - Ordinary Stop and Interrupt calls omit the expected-status option. Their cancellation authority is unchanged and remains covered by the run-control suite. - No schema migration or API request contract changes are required. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` in Codex, with extra-high reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The session does not expose its context-window limit. ## 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 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>	2026-10-19 11:34:27 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	016e40d532	fix(recovery): preserve shutdown export ownership through finalizer drain (#16843) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Legacy adapters must save sandbox files before Paperclip releases their source. > - Graceful shutdown gave each adapter a shared 30-second settlement wait. > - When that wait ended, cleanup could stop the sandbox while the adapter still exported files. > - That race created a restore failure and blocked the next turn. > - This pull request keeps export ownership through the finalizer drain and renews its cleanup fence. > - A successful late export can release its source and schedule one bounded continuation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15857. This corrects the timeout path introduced by the shutdown settlement fence. Refs #16478. That repair clears verified historical holds; this change prevents an active export from losing its source. Refs #16835. That merged fix handles remote native runner ownership. This change handles legacy shutdown settlement. ## What Changed - Keep a late adapter settlement in the shared execution finalizer set. Wait for it before lease release, recovery classification, and retry scheduling. - Renew the exact owned settlement fence every 10 seconds. Use a 30-second lease, one renewal in flight, a one-second database lock timeout, and a five-second statement timeout. Report bounded failure categories without raw database errors or credentials. - Refuse ordinary cleanup while the local adapter still owns settlement. Preserve the explicit owner stop-and-retain path. - Give the finalizer drain a further shared 30-second wait after the initial shutdown drain. - Document the ownership rule, the acceptance recipe, and the controller-loss limit. ## Verification - Red before the repair: the database-backed expired-wait regression expected cleanup denial but received permission to stop the still-owned source. - Green on `615a4382c5`: all 526 tests in `recovery.test.ts`, `legacy-workspace-restore-recovery.test.ts`, `shutdown.test.ts`, and `heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` passed. - The assembled heartbeat regression passed. It verifies no early release or retry, joining the late owner, successful cleanup, one durable scheduled continuation, and no duplicate after service reload. - Safety coverage includes other-controller fencing, controller loss, exact source retention, stop-only cancellation, completion winning the status race, and real database lock contention during renewal. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed on the final source revision. - A broad local `pnpm test:run` crossed the rebase and reported eight companion supervision failures. It was stopped and its log retained. The complete companion file then passed all 753 tests on current source. This is not a passing full local suite; current-head CI covers the complete repository checks. - The 34 recovery tests include real lock-timeout classification and credential-shaped error redaction. - Current-head CI: 53 checks passed; two optional Storybook checks skipped. Greptile is 5/5 on `615a4382c5`; no unresolved review threads. - Live sandbox acceptance remains unverified. Three disposable local-controller/Daytona attempts used legacy Codex ACP, `gpt-6-astra`, API-key authentication, and the verified image `ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip-daytona-runner@sha256:a2bd08cefb68d9217bdd75cf87a6b51f1705b18a4796eff3f97b2726a548b8fb`. ACP initialization exited before model execution on macOS Node 26.4.0 and again on Node 24.21.0; one attempt exposed a local process-session socket `ECONNRESET`. That does not establish the transport failure's root cause. No attempt reached the delayed export or second turn, so this PR remains draft pending faithful live acceptance. Probe setup defects were retained separately from product failures, and all test-owned sandboxes were cleaned up. ## Risks - Shutdown can spend up to 30 more seconds joining finalizers. The shipped Compose stop grace remains 90 seconds. - Renewal adds at most one database operation per owned run every 10 seconds during shutdown. Lock and statement deadlines bound database contention. The local adapter still protects its source if renewal fails. - Controller death or an export that outlives the whole process still needs retained-source repair. This change does not reconstruct a legacy export after process death or clear historical failed-restore holds. - No schema or public API changes. Native restart ownership, approval gates, and retry limits retain their existing behavior. - This PR has not been deployed. It does not recover an existing retained sandbox by itself. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and test tools. The exact backend model identifier and context window were 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>	2026-10-19 09:19:09 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f3cd3f4ea8	fix(runner): require confirmed exit before remote replacement (#16835) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Remote runs need one runner to own their process identity and listener. > - A health request can fail while that runner continues to work. > - The active monitor treated a failed request as a process exit. > - Recovery could then launch another runner against the occupied listener. > - This pull request retries health reads and requires proof of exit before replacement. > - A brief outage can recover on the same runner without replaying agent work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16341 adds remote recovery diagnostics. Refs: #16686 retries verification when restoring a saved remote session. This change applies the shared probe policy to active process supervision. **What happened?** The active remote monitor settled its completion promise after a timed-out or rejected health request. The transport treated that result as an exit and started process recovery. An existing runner could still own the listener. Replacement then failed with `runner_ingress_bind_conflict` until the reconnect deadline expired. Missing or changed ownership markers also did not prove that the old process had exited. **Expected behavior** Retry transient read failures on the same runner. Require a matching ownership marker and proof of process exit before replacement. Preserve uncertainty when identity or liveness cannot be verified. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a remote runner and leave its listener alive. 2. Make one process-health request time out or reject. 3. Observe completion and the restart decision. Before this change, the monitor settles while the process is alive, and the restart wrapper permits another launch. **Paperclip version or commit** The defect was reproduced on master at `6e89919631`. The patch is based on current master at `c6a0cf4bce`. ## What Changed - Reuse the bounded read-only recovery probe for active supervision. Retry up to three reads within 30 seconds. - Check the saved process generation when available. Accept only the specific process-not-running receipt as exit proof. - Add an exit-confirmation contract to remote process handles. Require it for restart and shutdown completion. Preserve the cause of supervision errors. - Test transient failures, exhausted retries, conflicting identities, real listening processes, and an authenticated runner with a fake provider. Keep confirmed-exit replacement covered. - Document the recovery policy and coverage limits in the execution contract and maps. ## Verification - Red: the timeout and transport-error regressions failed before the patch because completion settled while the runner was alive. The restart-guard regression also failed because replacement was allowed. - Green: 14 server supervision cases passed, including a real listening process. All 120 shared control-plane tests passed. Focused Runner tests passed for authenticated live-runner fault injection and confirmed-exit replacement. - Review regression: a replacement-health test first failed because its error cause was lost. It passed after preserving the cause and detail. The four affected transport cases and Runner typecheck then passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed for 35 areas and 176 capability IDs. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. The sequential local full-suite run was stopped before completion; no local full-suite pass is claimed. Final commit `bcc1b1d339` passed the complete CI matrix: 55 checks passed and two optional Storybook checks were skipped. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved conversations. The PR has no merge conflicts. - The first real-listener attempt could not bind inside the execution sandbox. The same test passed with local socket access. The first package-test invocation used the root configuration and selected no tests; the package configuration ran all selected tests. - CI attempt 1: nine test jobs were cancelled together at 12:54:59 UTC. Their test steps report cancellation. The build and uninterrupted jobs passed. The interrupted jobs were retried once. That retry exposed one confirmed-exit message assertion failure in the Runner shard; the other jobs passed. The compatibility correction preserves the prior message. The failing case and four recovery cases then passed locally. The complete CI matrix passed after that correction. - No live sandbox restoration, deployment, or historical task recovery is claimed. ## Risks - A persistent outage now ends supervision with explicit exit uncertainty. It cannot authorize a competing process. Existing ownership and workspace recovery checks remain required. - Health reads can take up to 30 seconds before reporting an unavailable runner. Retries are read-only and bounded. - Local launchers keep their existing completion contract. No database migration or public API change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving snapshot 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>	2026-10-19 08:19:37 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	1a79c8bdc7	fix(runtime): honor provider startup budgets on sandbox resume (#16802) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their execution environments. > - Follow-up runs reuse saved sandbox computers to keep their workspace. > - Starting a stopped or archived computer can take more than one minute. > - Acquisition already uses the provider's startup budget, but reuse imposed a separate one-minute deadline. > - This pull request gives resume the configured or declared provider startup budget. > - The benefit is that a healthy slow start can continue on the same computer. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A follow-up run failed during setup with `ReusableSandboxResumeError`. The saved computer became ready just after the host stopped waiting. The environment had no explicit timeout. Its provider declared a five-minute startup default, which the resume path ignored. **Expected behavior** Resume must honor the configured startup budget or the provider's declared default. It must retain the same lease. Failed or uncertain resumes must keep the saved computer. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Use a reusable sandbox provider with a startup budget longer than one minute. 2. Retain its lease and start a follow-up run. 3. Make provider resume finish after 61 seconds, within that budget. 4. Observe that the old host rejects at 60 seconds. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `aaeff418cf72341c674ff3393cd94f40dc4855f6`. **Deployment mode** Hosted sandbox execution. The regression uses a local isolated PostgreSQL database and controlled worker RPC timers. Searched open and closed PRs and open issues for sandbox resume and timeout fixes. No duplicate fix was found. Related acquisition timeout handling already exists on the base branch. ## What Changed - Use the provider's declared acquisition timeout when no explicit startup timeout exists. - Apply the resolved RPC budget to the shared resume/retry deadline instead of 60 seconds. - Add two deterministic 61-second resume regressions for declared and explicit startup budgets. Assert exact RPC budgets, including the 30-second margin, and check that the same lease remains active without replacement. - Document the timeout behavior, provider-author contract, and verification recipe. ## Verification - Red: both new cases failed before the production change with `ReusableSandboxResumeError`, caused by `Plugin RPC timed out`. - Green: `pnpm exec vitest run --fsModuleCache server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts` passed all 163 cases. The final review follow-up also passed both slow-resume cases with exact RPC-budget assertions (330 seconds by declaration; 150 seconds by explicit config). - An earlier full run passed the 161 existing cases but timed out in the two new tests because their fake clock also captured database scheduling. The corrected test restores real timers before lease persistence. The complete rerun then passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. - Started `pnpm test:run`, then stopped the duplicate serial run in favor of complete parallel PR CI. The repository timing data totals about 126 minutes for server suites alone. Full parallel CI passed on the final head. - CI attempt 1 had one unrelated failure: `FileViewerSheet.copy.test.tsx` expected the asynchronous `Copied link` confirmation before React rendered it. That test and component are unchanged from the base branch. All six cases passed unchanged locally. A single rerun of the failed shard passed; attempt 2 of the full workflow succeeded. The timing-race diagnosis is an inference from the test helper, not a claim that this PR repairs that UI test. - Greptile scored the final head 5/5. Both review findings are fixed and both threads are resolved. - The consequential assumption is that provider startup may exceed one minute. The test preserves the RPC timeout race with controlled timers and uses real lease persistence. Read-only provider evidence also showed the retained computer ready just after the failed run ended. The patch has not been deployed to that instance. ## Risks - A slow or unavailable provider may hold setup for its configured startup budget instead of one minute. Retries still share one finite deadline. Providers with no explicit or declared timeout keep the one-minute default. - Lease identity, company scope, backup validation, and replacement decisions use the existing paths. No schema or dependency changes are required. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. This session supports reasoning, tool use, code editing, and test execution. The exact runtime variant and context-window size are not exposed. ## 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>	2026-10-18 22:04:23 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3858d2341d	fix(recovery): default saved-monitor waits and keep task recovery quiet (#16686) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - A task must keep a durable path to its next action. > - A provider can save a task monitor, then fail to yield because it omits internal continuation fields. > - An interrupted provider-pack check can then be reported as permanent artifact incompatibility. > - The task asks its user to certify recovered workspace files, even though this is an operator responsibility. > - This pull request derives the saved monitor continuation, bounds verification retries, and removes that task form. > - Normal recovery stays quiet. Unresolved holds retain inspection and the existing safety checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A yielded completion without `continuation` is rejected even after the provider saves an eligible monitor on the task. Repeated attempts cannot finish. Remote verification also treats timeouts and missing exit status as artifact incompatibility. The task recovery notice exposes raw diagnostics and asks the task user to certify infrastructure files. **Expected behavior** Use current persisted task state to fill routine continuation fields. Retry interrupted verification reads within a fixed bound. Keep normal recovery in the working state. Show a compact notice only when work cannot safely continue. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Save an eligible monitor on the active task. 2. Call `paperclip_finish` with `reportedWorkDisposition: "yielded"` and omit `continuation`. 3. Return a timed-out remote provider-pack command with empty stderr during recovery. Inspect the resulting task notice. **Paperclip version or commit** Source baseline: `aaeff418cf` (master integrated with its current task visibility and saved-source reconstruction rules). Related changes: #15824, #16104, #16451, #16493, #16690. This fix complements saved-result recovery and verified pack reuse. It does not replace their workspace ownership checks. ## What Changed - Allow omitted or null continuation at the provider input boundary. Read current authorized task context and fill a monitor continuation only for the bound run and an eligible saved monitor. Keep accepted results strict. Apply this to Codex, OpenCode, both direct and production-sidecar ACPX paths, and external drivers. Reserve the semantic call identity during the saved-context read and reject cancellation or a changed run/turn. - Bind the shared completion change and continuation helper in a new Copilot v21 source declaration. Preserve v20 history and its decoder support. Qualification stays pending. - Expose the eligible continuation in task context. Completion admission still checks persisted monitor state. No schedule is created or renewed by the default. - Retry read-only provider verification at most twice per command. Hold exhausted reads with a distinct verification-unavailable cause. Reattachment cannot renew the read budget through an unchanged provider-attempt counter. Keep completed verification failures and wrong versions incompatible. - Remove the task file-certification form. Hide the notice only for a matching durable recovery path without an unknown-action replay hold. Keep missed retries, unsafe outcomes, and unresolved file holds visible. - Add production-component stories for automatic recovery, blocked and expired holds, reader access, persisted repair decisions, source reconstruction, queued continuation, and mobile. Preserve master’s guarded saved-source reconstruction choice after confirmed source destruction. Update the execution contract and access maps. ## Verification - Completion, helper, Codex, OpenCode, ACPX, and profile regressions pass. After the sidecar review fix, 271 tests across the production sidecar and three provider suites pass, plus 72 helper/profile tests. The real sidecar MCP bridge tests cover saved-monitor acceptance, no-monitor refusal, cancellation, duplicate call identity, and raw-versus-forwarded semantic receipt hashes. The OpenCode tests also cover eligible-monitor acceptance and refusal without one. - The fresh full native executor suite passes all 743 tests. Four profile, installation-integrity, and ACPX driver suites pass all 168 tests. The earlier CI fingerprint failure required a new immutable source declaration; its follow-up Docker failure required the matching context allowlist entry. Both fixes are verified locally. Targeted server monitor, tool authority, and provider verification suites pass. The probe tests include a real timed-out subprocess, an unrelated responsive timer, transport errors, and completed integrity rejections. - All 90 tests in the merged task notice, reconstruction choice, recovery display, and lineage suites pass. They cover reader access, live/missed/mismatched recovery, unknown outcomes, saved messages, retry refusal, and removal of the file form. Both review findings have failing-baseline/passing-treatment regressions: identical polling across retry expiry, and a failed refresh after cached running activity. - Browser walkthrough passed for automatic recovery, unresolved details, a 390px mobile story, and the merged saved-source reconstruction and queued states. The reconstruction control starts disabled and normal automatic recovery shows only Working. The stories use production components and fixture API data. They do not prove live cloud recovery. - Token gates, map checks, and Storybook catalog generation pass. The exact Docker context integrity command passes locally after adding the new build declaration to its allowlist. - Workspace typecheck and build pass on the final source, including the versioned identity update. The final server and UI guards pass their focused tests, typechecks, builds, and token gates. The final standalone Storybook builds. The saved-monitor default retains master’s stricter child-task visibility filter. Re-review caught an additional production-sidecar validator before forwarding; the fix now defaults at that boundary and has passing regression controls. After preserving master’s new reconstruction capability, 68 targeted reconstruction, tool-authority, and provider-verification server tests pass. The current-master integration at `2a80050a0d` has a fresh 5/5 review with zero unresolved threads. Its complete CI matrix, including Runner tests, is the merge acceptance record. - On the final master integration, local typecheck, build, and all 90 recovery UI tests pass. A concurrent runner run hit five 5-second sidecar startup timeouts; an isolated sidecar run passed 86 tests and timed out in the unrelated unsupported-bootstrap case. Those local deadline failures remain recorded; the canonical CI Runner lanes use their normal deadlines and pass. The unsharded local full-suite attempt did not complete. It spanned source edits; the fresh native executor run above passes. An unrelated workspace fixture timed out once and then failed to reserve 32 contiguous ports on this host. Its unchanged-base control and CI server suite pass. Full-suite acceptance uses the fresh latest-head CI matrix; this PR does not claim a passing unsharded local run. ## Risks The default applies only to an eligible persisted monitor. An explicit invalid continuation still fails validation. The added read occurs only when a yielded report omits its continuation. Admission rechecks current state after that read. An interrupted verification command can add one extra 30-second probe. Completed rejections stay closed. These probes do not change the pack, launch provider work, or replay external tools. Two inconclusive reads hold the original run. They do not schedule another reattachment with an unchanged provider-attempt counter. This PR’s pending Copilot v21 declaration binds the changed shared contract, resolver, direct driver, and production sidecar sources. The previous v20 declaration is immutable and remains decodable, but launch requires the new exact identity. Qualification remains pending. Task users lose the file-certification form. Board-authorized source-only repair remains available through the resolution API with the original evidence and stop-receipt requirements. This branch does not deploy or recover historical held runs. > This is a bug fix and UI polish within existing recovery behavior. ROADMAP.md was checked. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`, xhigh reasoning, with tool use and code execution. The host does not expose the context-window limit. ## 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 (changed-area suites; the full local run limitation is recorded above) - [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>	2026-10-18 21:43:15 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	d30648dee8	Preserve accepted messages for paused recipients (#16679) ... Keep accepted deferred requests pending while their recipient is paused and deliver through normal gates after resume. Preserve company, task hold, and cleanup checks. Verification: 247 focused checks, recursive typecheck, the full CI test and build matrix, and Apex 5/5. The local Git fixture initial-branch limitation is documented in the PR. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-17 18:38:17 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	391dd15ff2	fix: recover deferred messages and completed unblock waits (#16673) ... Recover accepted deferred messages through the latest finished issue run and recognize exact completed agent unblock notifications as passive idle waits. Preserve assignment handoffs, pause and Stop, failed outcomes, and cleanup ownership. Honor local and SSH release contracts and atomically settle cleanup claims. Add PostgreSQL recovery, concurrency, and interruption regressions. Validation: recursive typecheck and build pass; 678 focused tests pass; full CI passes; Apex review is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-17 16:53:29 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	c7ea5c0216	perf(server): skip settled committed finalizations in unscoped passes (#16485) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - On restart, `/api/health` reports `starting` until startup recovery finishes, and deploys wait for it > - Native recovery and the orphan reap each run an unscoped native finalization reconciliation pass, and readiness waits for both > - The pass selects every committed finalization with a result, including runs that ended long ago, and spends dozens of sequential queries on each one > - On a busy instance this is about one minute per pass, so about two minutes of every restart, and the periodic recovery repeats it on every tick > - This pull request skips settled committed finalizations in unscoped passes, and keeps a small rotating upkeep page so their upkeep still runs > - The benefit is faster restarts and less steady database load, with no change for unsettled work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #16330 and #16329 (startup and reconciliation timing). **What existing behavior does this improve?** Startup recovery time and steady-state recovery load. **Current behavior** - The unscoped candidate scan in `reconcileNativeFinalizations` returns every native finalization with a result and phase other than `terminal_failure`. Nothing excludes rows that are already settled. - Each committed row then takes the full per-row path: pending-effect, assessment, evidence and decision reads, presentation repair (twice), the workspace barrier read, a `finalizeNativeRun` re-read of the committed coordinator, and workspace settlement (lease release check and agent status update). That's about 40–60 sequential round trips per row. - Startup runs the unscoped pass twice (native recovery, then the orphan reap), and readiness waits for both. The periodic orphan reap runs it again on every tick. - On one instance, all 268 candidates were committed finalizations whose runs had ended. Native recovery took 50–80 s and the orphan reap 47–80 s on every restart, with database round trips of about 3.4 ms. **Proposed behavior** An unscoped pass skips a committed finalization when: - its run is `succeeded`, `failed`, `cancelled` or `timed_out`, and - the run finished more than an hour ago, and - its decision has no `pending` or `failed` status-decision effect. Each unscoped pass also includes up to 10 such settled rows in a rotating order, so the presentation and evidence upkeep still reaches every row over time. Scoped passes (explicit run IDs) are unchanged. **Reason and benefit** These settled rows have nothing left to finish. Recent rows, unfinished runs and rows with undelivered effects stay in every pass, so crash-window repairs and effect delivery behave as before. Startup and periodic passes no longer scale with the full history of committed runs. **Breaking changes** None. A late repair on a settled row can be delayed until its turn in the upkeep rotation instead of the next pass. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-finalization-reconciler.ts`: - `settledCommittedFinalization(now)`: the settled predicate above, including a `NOT EXISTS` on undelivered `status_decision_effects` for the same company, issue and decision. - The unscoped candidate scan adds `NOT settled OR run in the upkeep page`. - `nextSettledCommittedUpkeep`: up to `NATIVE_SETTLED_COMMITTED_UPKEEP_PER_PASS` (10) settled run IDs after an in-process cursor, ordered by run ID, wrapping at the end. - New constants `NATIVE_SETTLED_COMMITTED_GRACE_MS` (1 hour) and `NATIVE_SETTLED_COMMITTED_UPKEEP_PER_PASS`, plus `resetSettledCommittedUpkeepForTests`. - New `server/src/__tests__/native-finalization-settled-candidates.test.ts`. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: describes the settled rule and the upkeep rotation. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/native-finalization-settled-candidates.test.ts` (in `server/`): 4 passed. The test mocks the timing hook to capture the candidate count and stop the pass after the scan: - 25 settled rows give 10, 10, 5, then 10 again over four passes (rotation and wrap). - A row finished 10 minutes ago, a running row, and a terminal row without `finished_at` are all candidates. - A settled row whose decision has a `failed` effect is a candidate. - A scoped pass with an explicit run ID still selects a settled row. - `pnpm exec vitest run` for `native-finalization-recovery`, `legacy-finalization-regression`, `native-run-finalizer-telemetry`, `native-workspace-finalizer`, `native-finalization-reconciler-timing`, `external-chat-wait.integration` and `native-status-arbiter-corpus`: 316 passed. - `heartbeat/recovery.test.ts`: the 8 tests that do not need a database passed. The 20 database tests were skipped locally because embedded PostgreSQL could not start (the host's shared-memory segments were exhausted by other processes). CI runs them. - `pnpm typecheck` in `server/`: passed. ## Risks - A settled row that needs a late repair (for example a missing chat presentation) waits for its turn in the upkeep rotation, up to `ceil(settled rows / 10)` passes, instead of the next pass. - The upkeep cursor is in memory. After a restart the rotation starts from the beginning; the work is idempotent. - A run left `running` with a committed finalization is never considered settled, so it is still projected before the reaper's active-run loop. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), 1M context, through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs, database and log analysis). A separate Claude agent mapped the recovery call tree. ## 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 - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-15 16:42:15 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	61831ba7b8	refactor: defer adapter launcher imports during workspace snapshots (#16492) ... Defer adapter launcher imports until a directory merge resolves its lock root. Snapshot-only workers retain the same hashes, modes, exclusions, and ownership checks. Verification: 63 focused cases; full typecheck/build; exact-head full CI/E2E/security; Apex 5/5. Local native Daytona replies: 66.939s cold and 26.485s warm. Hosted staging and the cold latency target remain unverified. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-15 16:03:47 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	c53bdd9eb3	perf: capture sparse checkpoint files in bounded batches (#16473) ... Capture sparse checkpoint files in bounded batches while retaining content and mutation checks. Prevent inserts after SQLite automatic rollback and drain active readers before database close. Verified: 209 affected cases, final six capture controls, repository typecheck/build, real Daytona helper validation, and exact-head full CI/E2E, security and Apex 5/5. The matched component median saves 1.05s; the whole-agent latency target remains open. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-15 14:32:44 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	db11d899cf	fix(native): recover remote sessions while preserving warm runs (#16451) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native agents keep remote processes and conversation history across warm turns. > - A completed turn can leave handoff authority only in controller memory. > - Losing that controller can block a follow-up even while its sandbox survives. > - This pull request verifies durable ownership and reconnects the exact prior process before handing it to the next run. > - Healthy follow-ups stay warm. Recovery preserves saved work without replaying a completed turn. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A remote warm turn can finish without suspended backup authority. A replacement controller rejects that prior owner even when its exact process and completed checkpoint remain. A single unavailable identity probe can also stop an otherwise valid reattachment. **Expected behavior** Keep healthy follow-ups warm. Recover a completed session after proving that its controller stopped and that the successor holds current authority. Reuse compatible processes; otherwise save and resume the conversation. Retry unavailable identity reads within one shared deadline. **Steps to reproduce** Use `doc/testing-native-remote-continuity.md`. Its Linux cases execute real turns through PostgreSQL, TLS ingress, and the Rust runner. They kill a separate controller process, recover old checkpoint metadata, and change process configuration. The provider is deterministic. Related: #16432 and #16441 fix live warm-owner handoffs. #16341 adds recovery diagnostics. #14695 covers provider process retention. ## What Changed - Preserve warm process reuse between healthy remote turns. - Verify a committed prior result, stopped controller, matching checkpoint and sandbox, and current task/coordinator ownership before recovering an orphaned warm session. - Reconnect through the prior run route, then use the existing authenticated run attachment to change authority. - Persist a process-configuration digest. Close and save recovered sessions when old or changed configuration cannot support reuse. - Retry unavailable state, marker, and process reads within one 30-second deadline. Keep signals and definitive identity failures single-attempt. - Record closed recovery diagnostics, including unreadable or malformed saved state. - Retire the recovery-only ownership check after verified attachment, so later warm turns use their current authority. - Add real-process Linux regressions and refusal controls. - Expose the existing source-only file-recovery form for retained native holds, with the same board authority, evidence, and exact stop-receipt requirements as legacy holds. Recording recovered files does not change task status or replay a run. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed; the server check was repeated for the third-turn fix. - `pnpm build` passed after the final UI change. The UI typecheck, token gates, and map checks also pass. - Four Linux continuity cases passed: warm reuse, controller loss, legacy checkpoint metadata, and changed configuration. Each creates one conversation and starts exactly three turns, including a healthy follow-up after recovery. The fixture uses expired prior leases; the third turn keeps the runner and provider processes. - Greptile caught the retained recovery gate; the third-turn regression now covers it. An initial test omitted the heartbeat’s saved input and left a test process after failure; the fixture was corrected and its disposable container reset before the passing run. - The current focused executor/restart group passes all 749 tests, including the original failure classifications. - Native file-recovery and UI tests pass (52 tests), including blocked tasks and both native and legacy holds. - After merging current master and retaining its equivalent CI expression check, the CI policy tests pass (15 tests) and all four three-turn Linux continuity cases pass again on `dec418ae55ff21b4fb067132613658cce445f181`. - `pnpm test:run` completed its general server group with 20,572 passes, 103 skips, and three failures: the skill-audit child process and two HTTP test timeouts. The same three suites then passed in isolation (89 tests) without code changes. That local command stopped before later groups; the complete final-head CI, including general, serialized, Runner, build, and browser gates, is green. - Greptile reviewed the combined head `dec418ae55ff21b4fb067132613658cce445f181` at 5/5 with no actionable findings; both earlier findings are resolved. All final-head CI gates and the security scan passed. Staging deployment and retained-incident disposition remain deployment acceptance work. ## Risks - Recovery requires exact durable evidence. Live conflicting controllers, replacement sandboxes, Stop/pause, and uncertain effects must remain blocked. - After controller loss, tool-contract or process-configuration changes can restart the provider. Normal healthy follow-ups retain their processes. - The new idle-recovery path has Linux fake-provider evidence. Live Codex/OpenCode and retained quarantined-state recovery still need staging qualification. - No database schema, telemetry, or runner protocol changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and browser tools. The session does not expose a more specific model version or 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 (targeted checks and isolated reruns; full-run limitation recorded above) - [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 on `dec418ae55ff21b4fb067132613658cce445f181` - [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>	2026-10-15 13:26:09 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7fc2dc8b32	fix: isolate workspace snapshots from controller work (#16414) ... Move native sandbox snapshot captures off the controller callback queue while preserving the existing capture and restore contract. Keep legacy adapters inline, bound captures to two workers, and verify cleanup and reordered worker completion. Validation: 461 affected cases, full typecheck/build, exact-head CI/E2E/Superagent and Apex 5/5. The full local canonical suite remains running; no full local pass or under-30-second staging response is claimed. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-15 06:31:59 -05:00
3 people	cafa25029c	fix(native-runtime): recover unclaimed remote startup (#16349) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The native runtime preserves task execution across server restarts. > - Remote workspace preparation can finish before the executor claims its first provider attempt. > - The recovery classifier required a provider checkpoint even when the durable coordinator proved that execution had never started. > - A deployment during this interval therefore left safe startup work on a permanent recovery hold. > - This pull request admits that narrow startup state to the existing same-run bootstrap path. Existing execution and ownership checks remain in force. > - The original preparation yields when recovery owns the coordinator. It cannot fail or clean up the recovered run. > - Tasks can continue after this interruption without an operator retry or a duplicate provider turn. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A server deployment interrupted a prepared remote workspace before the native executor's first claim. The coordinator had attempt zero, controller generation zero, and no owner, process, provider event, or checkpoint. Restart classification returned `ambiguous_remote_recovery_evidence` and blocked the task. **Expected behavior** The server should recognize this durable never-claimed state and continue the original run through normal execution admission. A prior claim, uncertain ownership, or contradictory execution evidence must retain the recovery hold. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Prepare a remote workspace for a native run. 2. Stop the controller before the executor commits its first claim. 3. Restart the controller and classify the running native task. 4. Observe that the old classifier blocks it because no provider checkpoint exists. Related: #16341 preserves remote recovery failure reasons. #16344 strengthens remote restart qualification. Neither changes admission for an untouched remote startup. ## What Changed - Require a server-owned fencing version written only with fresh native identities. Older unmarked preparations stay held during rolling upgrades; caller profile data cannot add that marker to an existing run. - Leave the current server's active preparation with its existing execution. - Yield through the controller-detachment path when a different execution owns the coordinator lease. Lease expiry does not grant takeover authority. - Preserve run-scoped gateway tokens during detachment so stale preparation cannot revoke the recovered worker's tools. - Admit a valid prepared remote workspace only when the locked coordinator proves attempt and controller generation zero, no owner, and no prior session or execution evidence. - Check launch receipts and provider source events before granting bootstrap recovery. - Keep the original run and session. Preserve atomic recovery claims, executor durable-state checks, and normal admission gates. - Add real PostgreSQL regression tests for competing controllers and seven contradictory evidence cases. - Update recovery documentation, the run-log reason, and both capability maps. ## Verification - The competing-controller regressions failed before the ownership fix and pass for both live and expired foreign leases. - On the final revision, 77 runtime-selection, restart recovery, real PostgreSQL, and heartbeat boundary tests pass with no skips, including all local runner process fixtures. The full native executor file passes all 698 tests. - Another 91 live-run route tests pass locally. An earlier CI timeout in that unrelated file passed on retry; the complete final-head CI passed without that failure. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `git diff --check`: passed locally. The map check verifies structure only. - Local `pnpm test:run` did not finish: an early attempt had build-related collection failures, and later full-suite execution was stopped after complete CI passed. Targeted suites passed after build preparation. This is not a local full-suite pass. - The complete [PR workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38669996667) passed on `2baffb3652bfeb4705a30ca3706fbda6c3d72aa4`, including all test shards, build/typecheck, runner verification, and browser E2E. All 55 applicable review/security/CI checks succeeded; two Storybook checks were skipped. - [Greptile Apex](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16349#issuecomment-6180848957): 5/5 on the same final head, with no unresolved findings. - No live remote provider restart is claimed by the database regression. ## Risks - A bare executor can no longer take a foreign coordinator lease after expiry. A verified recovery claim must transfer authority first. - Existing preparations without the server-owned fencing marker retain their recovery hold during rolling upgrades. - Incorrect admission could duplicate provider work. This path requires a positive durable never-claimed receipt, rejects contradictory launch evidence, and keeps the executor's existing durable-root verification. - Previously claimed or incomplete remote recovery evidence remains blocked. This change does not clear historical terminal holds. - No schema, API, dependency, or UI changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, code execution, and browser inspection. The exact serving snapshot 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> Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-14 19:32:39 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	6fae6f2cb8	fix(wake-queue): preserve pending work when a queued run is stopped (#16357) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The wake queue releases task locks and can promote saved follow-up work when a run ends. > - An operator can stop a queued run before dispatch selects its runtime. > - The legacy release path can promote the old follow-up after that Stop. > - For an obsolete routine cycle, this can conflict with the current active cycle after cancellation has already committed. > - This pull request preserves the deferred input without promoting it at that release boundary. > - The benefit is that a queued Stop stays stopped and does not return an error from starting an obsolete follow-up. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: Refs #14300 and Refs #16339 describe other pre-dispatch cancellation paths. Related PR #16238 changes former-owner wake selection. This change addresses expected operator cancellation before legacy runtime selection, without changing those contracts. **What happened?** Stopping an unstarted legacy run committed its cancellation, then tried to promote a deferred wake. When another cycle of the same routine was already active, the issue lock update failed against `issues_open_routine_execution_uq`. The cancel request returned HTTP 500 even though the run was cancelled. Without a competing cycle, the Stop launched the old follow-up. **What did you expect to happen?** Release the stopped run's own locks and preserve deferred input for a later eligible instruction. Do not start the old queue as a side effect of Stop. **Steps to reproduce** Create two cycles of the same routine. Keep the current cycle active. Give the old cycle an unstarted legacy run with a verified bootstrap record and a deferred wake. Cancel that run as a board operator, then release its issue execution. The added database regression reproduces the failed lock update before the fix. **Paperclip version / commit** Reproduced on parent commit `976cdc77ed564dc3e014621505890b647e554a7f`. **Deployment mode** A remote runtime exposed the symptom. The regression uses embedded PostgreSQL and the real wake-queue adapter. ## What Changed - Recognize an expected operator Stop only when the legacy run has no runtime-selection time, start time, process-start time, or process identity. - Use the existing release boundary to preserve deferred input without promoting it. - Add database regressions for ordinary Stop, a competing routine cycle, repeated release, provider cancellation, runtime selection, and dispatched-run reconciliation. - Document the behavior and update both recovery maps. ## Verification - Before the fix, both queued Stop cases failed. The competing-cycle case raised `issues_open_routine_execution_uq`. The three control cases passed. - `node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/modules/wake-queue`: 7 files and 214 tests passed, including all five new database cases. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and all 10 map-script tests passed locally. The complete CI suite is green on `8e204eef87f1a593df5c183abef764e4b9eb5fd1`. The remaining serial local full-suite run was stopped once that unchanged-head CI verification passed; a local full-suite pass is not claimed. Apex review passed at 5/5 on the same head with no review threads. ## Risks - The change is limited to recorded operator cancellation before legacy runtime selection. Selected runtimes, dispatched work, provider cancellation, and native stop acknowledgement keep their existing paths. - Deferred work is retained. A later eligible instruction must still use normal admission and all current gates. - No schema migration or new authority is required. This regression is not proof of a live provider stop. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving snapshot 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>	2026-10-14 18:18:26 -07:00
3 people	976cdc77ed	fix(recovery): expose settled holds and their preserved decisions (#16169) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task recovery preserves work when execution or tool outcomes are uncertain. > - Automatic recovery can settle its record while keeping replay blocked. > - The recovery-actions API omitted those records unless they held workspace files. > - Operators and agent tools could therefore see an empty recovery history for a task that still had an execution hold. > - This pull request lists those holds and shows their matching decision in the existing stopped-run notice. > - Existing stop verification, continuation, and file repair gates remain in force. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A cancelled or failed task can retain a settled recovery record with `automaticRecovery.replay: blocked`. The task remains held, but the recovery-actions API returns no action. The board notice also lacks that record's decision. **Expected behavior** List settled execution holds that still block replay. Let an authorized board user inspect the current action and run in Recovery details. Preserve the existing guarded continuation and required-file repair paths. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Stop a run whose outcome requires inspection. 2. Let automatic recovery settle its record with replay blocked. 3. Read the task's recovery actions and open its stopped-run notice. 4. Before this change, the action list is empty unless workspace recovery is required. **Paperclip version or commit** This PR includes current master through `66424362a85`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated and local deployments with persisted execution recovery holds. The original API correction and route regression are by Tao Xie (@TaoXieSZ). This update preserves those commits and adds the board inspection path, current documentation, and regression coverage. Related: #14840 describes controller lease loss. This change exposes recovery records; it does not change controller lease renewal. ## What Changed - Include settled execution reconciliation holds with replay blocked in the company-scoped recovery-actions response. - Read the matching action from the existing stopped-run notice. Show its decision under Recovery details, including when active recovery is empty. - Reject mismatched historical records in the notice. Bind history to the current action/run and refresh visible decisions every five seconds. Keep history read errors visible beside the current guidance. - Preserve existing run inspection, new-message continuation, and required-file repair controls. No new reconciliation form is added. - Update the execution documentation and both recovery capability maps. ## Verification - Recovery route suite with real embedded PostgreSQL: 80 passed, none skipped. - Notice and retry-client suites: 36 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed. This checks structure only. - `git diff --check`: passed. - Full `pnpm test:run` was started. It is not yet a full local pass. Initial database tests were affected by missing packaged macOS library aliases; the aliases were restored in this worktree's dependencies, and the complete recovery route suite then passed. - All CI checks passed on `09e4461e4d3a0960a4dc8bc270a2a10c628bf524`, including the full test matrix, typecheck, build and browser checks. Optional Storybook jobs were skipped. - Apex: 5/5 on the same head. Both review threads are resolved; the reviewer confirmed the existing guarded continuation design. ## Risks - The API response now includes settled records that still block replay. Consumers must distinguish a settled record from permission to continue. - Recovery history is supplemental. A failed history read keeps the current blocker and guidance visible. - The UI binds the decision to both the current action and run. It does not certify tool outcomes or grant execution authority. - No schema, dependency, telemetry, or runtime admission changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution, assisted with the board inspection and verification follow-up. The exact serving snapshot ID and context window size are not exposed in this session. The original API work is retained from Tao Xie's contribution. ## 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 (targeted suites; full-suite limits above) - [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: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-14 17:32:35 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	cda77edc60	perf(server): stop readiness waiting on startup housekeeping (#16329) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - On restart, `/api/health` reports `starting` until startup recovery finishes, and deploy tooling waits for `ok` > - After heartbeat recovery, readiness also waits for housekeeping that every scheduler tick repeats and that serving requests does not need > - #16330 added OpenTelemetry spans for the main startup phases; native recovery and orphan reaping are the slow ones, and both run the native finalization reconciliation pass, which has no inner breakdown > - This pull request stops readiness waiting on that housekeeping, and records the phases of slow reconciliation passes as spans > - The benefit is faster readiness on every restart, and traces that show where a slow reconciliation pass spends its time ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Builds on #16330, which records `controller.startup.<phase>` spans. Related to #16328. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Server readiness time after a restart, and diagnosis of slow native recovery. **Current behavior** - After heartbeat recovery, readiness waits for the custom-image setup cleanup, tool connection health (remote MCP checks), decision expiry, the adapter and setup-token login reapers, environment lease cleanup (provider calls) and the retention sweep. Each also runs on every scheduler tick. On one instance they added 11–28 s to every measured restart. A throw in any of them fails startup. - On the same instance, native recovery took from 33 s to 11.5 min and orphan reaping from 30 s to 4 min across restarts in one hour. Both run the native finalization reconciliation pass. The #16330 spans time each step as a whole, but not the phases inside that pass. **Proposed behavior** - The housekeeping steps run after readiness. The scheduler interval still starts after them. - With an OTLP endpoint, a reconciliation pass of at least one second records a span with one child span per phase. **Reason and benefit** Readiness depends only on what serving requests and run recovery need. Slow reconciliation passes become attributable to a phase in the existing traces, without adding trace volume for the periodic pass. **Breaking changes** None. A failed housekeeping step no longer fails startup; it is logged and the next step runs. ## What Changed - `server/src/index.ts`: moves the housekeeping steps into `runStartupHousekeeping`, which runs after readiness under `trackHeartbeatSchedulerWork` (idle sleep and shutdown wait for it). Each step catches and logs its own failure (`startup housekeeping step failed`). The heartbeat scheduler interval starts when housekeeping finishes, unless the scheduler was stopped, so the reapers still finish before the first timer tick. - New `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-reconciliation-timing.ts`: records the phase boundaries of one pass. When the pass took at least one second and an OTLP endpoint is configured, it emits a `controller.native_reconciliation` root span (`paperclip.native-reconciliation`) with child spans `legacy_workspace_exports`, `obsolete_policy_reviews`, `automatic_completion_reviews`, `candidate_scan` and `candidates`, using the recorded start and end times. It records `scoped` and the candidate count only. A failed pass marks the pass span and the running phase. Tracing failures are swallowed. - `native-finalization-reconciler.ts`: the exported function wraps the pass in that timing and finishes it in `finally`, so failed passes are recorded; the original error is rethrown. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: what readiness waits for, and the housekeeping order. `doc/observability.md`: the reconciliation spans. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/native-reconciliation-timing.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/native-finalization-reconciler-timing.test.ts src/startup-recovery-timing.test.ts` (in `server/`): 52 passed. New tests: - Readiness is `ready` while a housekeeping step hangs, and the heartbeat interval starts only after the step settles. - A failed housekeeping step is logged, and the scheduler still starts after the remaining steps. - Span timing: nothing for a fast pass or without an endpoint; a slow pass emits the pass span and one child per phase with the recorded times; a failed pass marks the running phase and the pass; a failing tracer does not throw. - The reconciler records its phases and a failed outcome when a pass throws, and rethrows. - Three existing startup tests settle housekeeping before they read the scheduler interval or the setup cleanup. - `pnpm exec vitest run src/services/native-runtime`: 4,399 passed. - `pnpm typecheck` in `server/`: passed. ## Risks - Housekeeping now runs concurrently with the first requests and with `waitForExternalAdapters`. None of these steps is needed to serve requests, and each one also runs on every scheduler tick. - Readiness is reported earlier; the heartbeat timer starts at the same point relative to housekeeping as before. - The new spans exist only with an OTLP endpoint and only for passes of at least one second. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), 1M context, through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs). ## 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 - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-14 15:55:13 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	1e731520bb	fix(mcp): deduplicate discovered tool descriptors (#16281) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents receive governed app tools through the MCP gateway. > - GitHub review tasks can contain a PR discussion and inline finding threads. > - Discovery repeated each tool for every conversation linked to the task. > - Native tool registration treated these repeated descriptors as a fatal collision. > - This pull request lists GitHub tools once and deduplicates identical descriptors across providers. > - Agents can continue work while conflicting definitions and normal tool permissions remain enforced. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A follow-up run on a GitHub review task failed with `assigned_mcp_tool_name_collision` before the provider started. The task had a main conversation and an inline finding thread. Discovery returned the same seven tools twice. Repeated descriptors from other providers could cause the same failure. **Expected behavior** Discovery exposes each identical tool once. Separate connection names remain separate tools. Conflicting definitions remain an error. Every call still passes the gateway's policy, approval, revocation, and audit checks. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a GitHub review and publish an inline finding. 2. Send a follow-up request on the same PR task. 3. Inspect the task-bound bot catalog and the next native startup. 4. Separately, return two identical descriptors from an assigned app or plugin catalog. Related: #13717 added the GitHub review workflow. ## What Changed - Use a distinct GitHub discovery query across conversations that share an endpoint and task. Keep both thread mappings. - Deduplicate identical gateway descriptors by their full gateway name across providers. Use this rule for MCP listings, plugin listings, assigned-tool startup, and fresh assigned-tool discovery. - Reject conflicting descriptors with `tool_name_collision`. Keep the projected-name collision guard. - Cover GitHub inline-thread discovery, repeated plugin/app tools, direct and on-demand catalogs, revocation, conflicting bindings, and separate connection names. - Update the execution contract, GitHub documentation, and agent access map. ## Verification - Regression baseline: six new assertions failed on the original implementation. GitHub returned fourteen entries, plugin discovery repeated a tool, and native startup failed on repeated app tools. - Focused verification passed: 272 GitHub cases, all 29 assigned-tool cases, and all 88 gateway acceptance cases. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - Current-head CI passed: 55 checks passed, two inapplicable checks skipped. Greptile scored the current head 5/5 with no unresolved threads. - Full local `pnpm test:run` encountered a 15-second timeout in the existing bearer-auth throttling test, before tool discovery. That test passed in the separate 88-case gateway run and on one isolated rerun. The duplicate broad local run was then stopped; the complete current-head CI matrix passed. ## Risks - Deduplication keeps the first identical descriptor and preserves listing order. Same-name descriptors with different definitions fail with HTTP 409 rather than selecting an ambiguous binding. - The GitHub query changes result cardinality. It retains the existing task/company/agent filters and leaves conversation rows intact. - No schema migration or credential change. Live staging recovery requires deployment and a new authorized run. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with code inspection, editing, browser investigation, and test execution. The exact serving model ID and context window 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>	2026-10-14 07:39:54 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	5ea3f905cf	fix: preserve workspace finalization during watchdog recovery (#16247) ... Keep task completion separate from runtime and workspace settlement. Permit verified board file-only repair of successful legacy retained-source runs without authorizing replay. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 18:35:27 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	6c198d616e	fix(issues): preserve human handoffs from the active agent run (#16082) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks have one owner, and the server records assignment changes. > - An agent can finish its work by handing the task to a human for review. > - The assignment route stops the active run before it saves that handoff. > - When the caller is that run, a slow workspace restore can exceed the stop timeout and prevent the assignment from saving. > - Recovery can then mark the task Blocked while its comment says the handoff succeeded. > - This pull request lets the authenticated legacy run save a human handoff and finish its turn normally. > - Other actors and transfers to executable agents keep the verified stop requirement. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13730. Related: #13782, #14700, and #15094. **What happened?** An agent posted its review handoff, then sent `PATCH /api/issues/{id}` to assign the task to its human creator with status `in_review`. The route cancelled that same run before saving the assignment. Workspace restore took 66 seconds. The stop limit is 60 seconds. The assignment never committed. Recovery marked the task Blocked, and it stayed assigned to the agent. **Expected behavior** The authenticated active legacy run can hand its own task to a human and finish normally. The human assignment and requested review status must save without waiting for workspace restore. Native runs, board reassignment, agent API keys, and transfers to another agent still require a verified stop. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a legacy agent on its assigned task with a signed run token. 2. Send a task PATCH from that run with a human `assigneeUserId`, a null `assigneeAgentId`, and status `in_review`. 3. Make stopping the sandbox take more than 60 seconds. Before this fix, the handoff fails before the task update. With this fix, the update saves and the run finishes normally. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced in hosted execution. The patch is based on master at `56a0bf0d492`. **Deployment mode** Hosted authenticated server with a legacy agent in a remote sandbox. The same route serves local deployments. PR #13782 proposes a broader exemption for all self-handoffs. This focused change limits the exemption to human recipients and legacy runs. It checks the exact active run, agent, company, and task, and it retains the stop requirement before an executable successor can take ownership. PRs #14700 and #15094 address later wake and recovery behavior after a reassignment stop. ## What Changed - Skip the reassignment cancellation only for an authenticated legacy run handing its own task to a human. - Reject later mutations from the outgoing run against its human-owned task, both in route authorization and under the update transaction locks. - Keep assignment permission checks, goal control, and queued human response protection. - Add route regressions for slow stops, active-run lookup, actor and runtime boundaries, recipient types, permission denials, and follow-up edits, completion, and reassignment. - Update the real HTTP low-trust handoff test to prove the run stays alive, its late edit fails, and the human wake receipt remains invalidated. - Add Postgres tests for saved assignment, former-owner rejection, and review state after the outgoing run succeeds or fails. - Document the handoff rule and update the task feature and agent access maps. ## Verification - 328 relevant tests passed across the route, issue service, low-trust HTTP, and legacy recovery suites. The route suite passed all 160 tests, and all 13 low-trust HTTP tests passed after updating the obsolete cancellation expectation. - Removing the production guard makes both slow-shutdown handoff regressions fail with HTTP 500. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - `git diff --check` passed. - All 54 current-head checks passed; 2 optional Storybook checks were skipped. The CI lanes cover the full Vitest suite, typecheck/build, Runner checks, and product E2E checks. - Apex reviewed `c68fbfb356c3d80eb7136babb49940709a3c3459` at 5/5 with no findings; both earlier review threads are resolved. - The complete test lanes passed in CI. The duplicate local full `pnpm test:run` was stopped after CI completed; it did not finish locally. All 328 focused local tests and full local typecheck/build passed. ## Risks - The outgoing legacy turn stays alive after the human takes ownership. Route and transactional ownership checks reject its later mutations of the human-owned task. Read and comment access follows normal policy. Goal control still runs before the handoff. - This exemption does not apply to native runs or another agent as recipient. Those paths still stop the old execution before assignment. - This fix prevents future failed handoffs. It does not infer or replay old assignment requests. - There is no schema change or API shape change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The session does not expose a more specific runtime model ID or 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>	2026-10-12 20:34:28 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	0bbd586a2f	fix(server): wait for workspace restore before shutdown lease release (#15857) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Server shutdown must stop agent execution and preserve its files. > - Legacy adapters export workspace and instruction changes during settlement. > - Shutdown released their sandbox leases before this export finished. > - The provider closed command access, so the later Git export failed. > - This change stops an owned adapter through its cancellation control and waits for settlement before release. > - A bounded timeout retains the exact sandbox source behind the existing repair gate. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A server restart interrupted a remote legacy run. Shutdown began releasing its sandbox lease while the adapter was still stopping its provider and restoring files. The sandbox provider closed command admission. The adapter's later Git export failed with `workspaceRestoreFailure: restore_failed`, leaving the task held for workspace repair. **Expected behavior** Shutdown keeps the exact lease available through provider stop, instruction collection, and workspace restore. Cleanup follows adapter settlement. A restore that exceeds the bounded deadline keeps its exact source for repair before later execution. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start an owned legacy adapter with a sandbox workspace. 2. Send SIGTERM to the server while the adapter is active. 3. Delay adapter settlement until after the shutdown terminal write. 4. On the base branch, shutdown releases the lease without cancelling or joining the adapter. Its later export can encounter closed provider admission. Related: #14311 defines the provider-stop boundary for file collection. #15042 closes run admission during shutdown. This fix orders sandbox release after the adapter's existing file settlement. ## What Changed - Cancel each owned legacy adapter and join all affected runs within one shared 30-second window. - Commit a durable fence on the exact sandbox before exposing interruption. Other cleanup workers defer while export is pending. - Permit the exact aborted owner's stop-only request so shutdown does not block provider termination. - Reload current execution evidence after settlement. Release leases even when the adapter's ordinary terminal write wins the shutdown race. - Claim the current fence before recording timeout retention. An old snapshot cannot create a repair hold after successful settlement. - Recover fenced sources after controller loss, including released stop receipts. Block reuse or destruction of the physical allocation while file recovery is required, including direct resume and destroy calls with historical lease snapshots. Convert failed ordinary cleanup into stop-only recovery after its existing attempt settles. - Allow 90 seconds for shutdown in shipped Compose services. Preserve native runner restart ownership and unregistered process behavior. - Add database regressions for restore order, timeout, concurrent cancellation, another cleanup worker, controller loss, stale snapshots, stop-only settlement, and completion races. Document the shutdown order. ## Verification - The original ordering regression failed on the base implementation. - Latest recovery and environment runtime suites: 190 tests passed. The other four focused suites passed 136 tests, covering run control, shutdown, file repair, server startup, and environment runtime. - Server typecheck passed. Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the latest head. - `pnpm test:run` was run locally. Its general-server group passed 18,559 tests and failed seven, with one unhandled error. The long run started before the review fixes, then loaded newer regression cases against older transformed modules. The current focused suites pass in a fresh process. The damaged-prior-epoch native-session-resume failure also reproduces on unchanged base commit de9ab8e7e0. An isolated rerun of the Google Workspace connection case passed. Later full-run groups did not run because general-server stopped on failure. - The prior CI startup import failure is fixed: expiry loads the terminal recorder only when it needs to pin recovery. Its focused startup suite passes. - Apex reviewed commit c564320b16 at 5/5. All review threads are resolved. All latest-head CI gates passed. The branch has no merge conflicts. ## Risks Owned legacy adapters share a 30-second shutdown window. The wait is bounded. Timeout cleanup uses the existing stop-and-retain and workspace repair paths. A timeout can require manual file verification even if a late restore succeeds. No database migration or API change is needed. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, and test tools. The session identifies the model family as GPT-6. It does not expose a more specific runtime model ID or 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 (focused suites; full local limitations are listed above) - [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>	2026-10-11 09:30:59 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	5847f047c7	fix(connections): retire requests for already available tools (#15856) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Connection cards let users provide the access an agent needs. > - Users can complete setup in Apps while an earlier card stays pending. > - A stale card can then cancel recovery despite valid existing access. > - This change verifies existing access and expires the obsolete request. > - It records a system outcome and sends one durable continuation. > - Approval, identity, permission, and workspace recovery gates remain in place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An ordinary tool connection request stayed pending after the addressed user connected the service in Apps. A later conversation retry was cancelled with `issue_waiting_for_response`. **Expected behavior** A request expires when the same user and requesting agent already have usable access. The agent gets a durable tool refresh. The system records no new human approval. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Have an agent request a tool connection on an active task. 2. Connect the service through Apps with the addressed user's existing grant, agent install, and allowed tools. 3. Let a conversation run stop and retry. The pending card still blocks the retry on the base branch. Related: #12345 introduced the connection request flow. This fix uses its existing access checks and delivery queue. ## What Changed - Verify company, task ownership, user identity, membership, health, grants, installs, and task tool policy before expiring an ordinary request. - Preserve AI account, channel, additional permission, and upstream provider requests on their existing paths. - Save the system outcome, audit event, and continuation in one transaction. Notify an idle delivery worker when a request commits. - Recheck access and other questions or approvals before delivery, retry, final dispatch, and native projection. Refresh system observations for an authorized replacement account. - Rearm delivery when access changes before provider work starts. Verify the host's admission receipt against execution evidence before allowing retry without a repair incident. - Require the current delivery claim when marking an attempt complete. An old completion cannot overwrite a rearmed continuation. - Add embedded-Postgres regressions for permissions, policy, concurrency, restart, replacement accounts, both dispatch gates, and the delivery race. Keep genuine workspace repair holds blocking. ## Verification - Latest-head connection, wake-context, dispatch, and legacy recovery suites: 124 tests passed. The connection suite includes 44 real-Postgres cases. - Server typecheck passed. Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the latest head. - `pnpm test:run` was run locally. Its general-server group passed 18,583 tests and failed 20. That long run started before the review fixes, then loaded new test cases against modules transformed before those fixes. The affected latest-head suites pass in a fresh process. - One full-run failure also reproduces on unchanged base commit de9ab8e7e0: native-session-resume's damaged-prior-epoch replacement case. It is outside this change. Full-run groups after general-server did not run because that command stopped on failure. - Apex reviewed commit 96b96297f4 at 5/5. All review threads are resolved. All latest-head CI gates passed. The branch has no merge conflicts. ## Risks A false readiness result could retire a request too early. The fix reuses the runtime access selection rules, makes no new grants, and rechecks access at delivery. Ordinary expired requests do not authorize continuation. A failed workspace restore still requires repair through the existing gate. No schema migration is needed. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, and test tools. The session identifies the model family as GPT-6. It does not expose a more specific runtime model ID or 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 (focused suites; full local limitations are listed above) - [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>	2026-10-11 09:30:45 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	3389bea708	fix(recovery): surface exhausted review-path repair (#15764) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - An issue in review needs a saved path to its next action. > - A consumed review path starts one automatic repair run. > - The repair run can finish with only a promise to check later. > - The old code skips another wake but records no recovery action. > - This change records a board decision when that repair also leaves no saved path. > - The issue lock protects a new monitor, a changed owner, or newer work from stale finalization. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An agent waiting for an external build said it would check again soon. Its one-shot monitor had already fired. The automatic review-path repair also finished without saving another monitor. The task stayed in review with no future wake or recovery card. **Expected behavior** The repair must save a monitor or another review path. If it cannot do so, Paperclip must show an explicit recovery action and stop automatic retries. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Leave an agent-owned issue in review after consuming its last monitor or interaction. 2. Let the source run finish without saving another review path. 3. Let the single automatic repair run also finish without saving a path. 4. Before this change, the task stays in review without a scheduled follow-up. After this change, it is blocked with a board-owned recovery action and an inline notice that links the repair run. Related work: Refs #14757 (preserve active review during stale recovery), Refs #11925 (review-path liveness). This PR handles exhausted repair wakes; it does not change path aging. ## What Changed - Return an explicit exhausted result after the single review-path repair attempt. - Record the recovery action, blocked state, notice, and activity in one transaction. Preserve the original assignee. Keep implicit service reads on the transaction connection. - Recheck the company, owner, saved review paths, and latest issue run before escalation. Publish activity after commit. - Tell the repair agent to save a one-shot monitor and report its check time when an external check remains pending. - Retry missed escalation from the saved terminal repair run during the stranded-issue sweep. Cover restart recovery and rollback with a one-connection pool. - Preserve valid due and claimed monitors for dispatch while the owner permits on-demand wakes. Surface overdue monitors after those wakes are disabled. Keep the future-only liveness classifier unchanged. - Cover monitor repair, stale finalization, company boundaries, duplicate finalization, and failed repair. Document the behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/recovery/review-path-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts` — 62 tests passed, including PostgreSQL integration tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — 18,144 passed, with three unrelated local fixture failures. Two Git fixtures pass when run with their expected initial branch (`master`); this machine defaults to `main`. The native same-task replacement fixture also fails on an unchanged checkout of master. No unrelated production behavior was changed to accommodate those fixtures. - Apex review — 5/5 on commit `3aca7059848`, with no unresolved review comments. - Latest-head CI — all required checks passed, including test shards, typecheck, build, browser checks, and canary dry run. No merge conflicts. - Repeat the steps above. Confirm that the issue has one recovery notice, one board-owned action, and no second automatic repair wake. Save a monitor during repair and confirm that the issue stays in review. ## Risks - A review repair that exhausts its one attempt now moves the task to blocked and asks the board to act. This is an intentional behavior change. - The check uses the current review-path classifier. A path that the classifier treats as healthy still suppresses escalation. - No schema, API, or UI contract changes are required. Existing recovery controls render the action and notice. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context window. ## 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 (62 tests for this change; full-suite fixture limitations are listed above) - [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>	2026-10-09 18:56:20 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	00d944f96c	fix(chat-channels): resume follow-ups after Slack Stop (#15737) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels let verified users stop an agent and send another message from Slack. > - Native execution needs the stopping user's identity to recognize a deliberate Stop. > - Slack omitted that identity, so a stopped run could create a recovery hold. > - A pending AI login request for another user could then block the new message. > - This pull request records the verified stop actor and scopes AI login waits to the current user. > - Users can start a fresh turn after a verified Stop while access and approval gates remain in force. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A user stops a native run from its bound Slack thread. Slack confirms the Stop. The user sends a follow-up and receives a queued acknowledgement, but execution does not start. The run can acquire a recovery hold. A pending AI login request addressed to another user then blocks explicit continuation. **Expected behavior** An acknowledged operator Stop ends the current response. A new authorized user message starts through normal admission after the previous execution has stopped. An AI login request for another user stays pending but does not gate this user's turn. Tool access, approvals, unknown identities, and unconfirmed cleanup still block execution. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a native agent run in a Slack thread with a pending AI login request addressed to a different user. 2. Stop the run with the signed Slack Stop action. 3. Send a new message from a verified linked user. 4. Observe the recovery hold and the pending-decision message on the saved follow-up. Refs: #15421 for the related verified linked-user authority path. That change separates guest and trusted tasks; this change handles cancellation and login wait scope. ## What Changed - Pass the verified Slack user's identity to canonical run cancellation. - Scope AI login waits by the current run's responsible user, with a company-scoped lookup. - Use the same wait predicate for explicit continuation, native execution, and recovery decisions. - Admit already-saved native follow-ups posted after Stop through the existing continuation checks. Keep pre-stop and delivered messages held. - Keep pending cards and their authorization state intact. - Add regression tests for signed Slack Stop, fresh-turn admission, and same-user, unknown-user, tool-access, and company-boundary gates. - Give the two affected database setup hooks the standard 90-second budget. - Document Slack Stop and user-scoped AI login waits. ## Verification - Red: signed Slack Stop omitted the cancelling user; direct continuation and already-saved post-Stop continuation both returned `null`. - Green: 57 continuation/audience checks passed, including legacy operator Stops, pre-stop input, delivered input, same-user login, unknown identity, company boundaries, cleanup, ownership, pauses, and approvals. - The combined signed Slack Stop and original gate check passed: 39 tests. - Existing native question/completion suite: 33 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - Rebased regression check: 18 tests passed on current master. The reviewed database-support setup change passed all 7 audience checks. - Full latest-head CI passed, including all server, chat, package, serialized-server, Runner, browser, build, and canary gates. - The duplicate local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the full CI matrix passed. It was slow on the contended host; no failure had been reported. The focused reproduction command is: ```sh pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/issue-question-context.test.ts server/src/services/explicit-native-continuation.test.ts server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts --fsModuleCache --testTimeout 60000 -t 'AI connection wait audience|scopes connection waits|resumes an already-saved follow-up|durably retries a signed Slack session stop' ``` - Manual evidence: inspected the bound thread's cancelled run, queued messages, recovery hold, and login card. The staging deployment has not been changed. ## Risks - AI login wait behavior changes only when both the addressee and current responsible user are known and differ. Missing identity retains the gate. - Starting a new turn does not grant access or answer the old card. Credential selection still uses the new run's authority. - Process, remote cleanup, recovery, task ownership, pause, budget, and approval checks remain in place. - No schema migration or public API change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, browser inspection, and code execution. The exact runtime model ID and context window 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>	2026-10-09 16:47:21 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	bf9dbd18a8	fix(runner): recover incompatible Codex models before launch (#15519) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Runner prepares and saves each task's provider configuration before launch. > - A sandbox image can have a supported Codex CLI that is too old for the selected model. > - The current version check stops that task even when the image can run a similar model. > - This pull request selects a compatible model before it saves a fresh execution. > - The task continues with a visible warning, and recovery uses the saved effective model. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #15053. This fixes the same CLI and model mismatch for fresh remote Runner tasks. It does not change subscription onboarding. - Refs #14721. This adds a bounded startup choice for Codex CLI compatibility. It does not add user-defined fallback chains or quota failover. - Related PR: #15399 added the model-specific CLI checks that this change preserves at launch. ## What Changed - Check the preinstalled remote Codex CLI before saving a fresh execution that uses a model with a verified CLI minimum. - Select the closest compatible older model in the same class, then the stable Runner default. Consider each candidate once. - Save the effective model before checkpoint selection. Keep the requested agent and task settings unchanged. - Add a task warning and a local `runner.model_fallback` run-log event with both models and the CLI version. - Share executable discovery with the launch verifier. Preserve explicit artifact and install settings, saved executions, and existing artifact checks. - Add regression tests and document the selection and warning behavior. ## Verification - Red: the three new provider-configuration regression cases failed before the fix. They kept the incompatible requested model. - Red: both rejected-probe cases failed before the review fix. They now defer to launch verification. - Green: targeted provider configuration, remote preflight, task warning, and launch-verifier tests pass (680 tests). - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - [Full CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37713759744) passes on `eb273fc32661526d90a864b42c73a7da61dd62da`: 47 successful jobs, including all general and serialized Vitest groups, browser shards, Runner verification, typecheck, build, and the canary dry run. - Local extended verification: three serialized shards pass (115 suites). HTTP route tests hit intermittent 15-second timeouts. The authorization suite passes on rerun (130 tests). The document suite passes on both master and the PR head in the same isolated setup (6 tests). The local general run was stopped after the equivalent full CI matrix passed. - `pnpm build` passes. - Server typecheck and build pass again after the probe-error review fix. - `git diff --check` and `pnpm check:module-boundaries` pass. - Example: request `gpt-6.1-sol` on Codex 0.158.0 to use `gpt-6-sol`; on 0.156.0, use `gpt-5.6-sol`. The warning names the requested model, effective model, and CLI version. - This PR has not been deployed to staging. ## Risks - A fallback can have different capabilities. The task warning makes the substitution visible. Later runs can use the requested model after the image CLI is updated. - Preparation adds two remote commands for models with a verified CLI minimum. Failed or invalid version probes retain the existing launch checks. - This only handles known CLI and model mismatches before a fresh provider launch. Authentication, capacity, and artifact failures keep their existing behavior. - No database migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. This session does not expose the exact deployment model ID, context window size, or reasoning setting. ## 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>	2026-10-08 04:57:26 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	fd8c6b920a	fix(native): resume connection tasks after approval decisions (#15471) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native tasks can pause while a human decides whether to allow a connection action. > - The next turn needs both the saved decision and complete accounting for the previous turn. > - Cancellation could discard final usage, and complete direct Claude API receipts could remain unpriced. > - A stale blocked or review report could also request approval again after the original card was declined. > - This pull request retains shutdown accounting and rejects approval waits bound to an already resolved action. > - The benefit is reliable continuation with the existing budget and approval controls. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15420. Related: #15312 addresses requester ownership during dispatch. This change addresses receipt capture and final-response validation. ## What Changed - Retain usage events after native cancellation. Continue to reject late provider messages and work. - Drain same-turn accounting and terminal events for at most fifteen seconds after a durable governed wait. Keep incomplete accounting blocked. - Estimate complete, unpriced, direct Anthropic API receipts for the exact `claude-sonnet-5` model. Record the rate version and assumptions. Use the one-hour cache-write rate when the receipt lacks cache TTL. - Bind stale approval reports to exact interaction, action-request, or invocation IDs in the same company, task, agent, and run. Cover blocked, review, and response-wake reports. Keep independent reviews valid. - Fence checkpoint and result writes after a controller detaches for restart, including operations waiting for a database lock. Reject stale successful returns before certifying accounting. - Allow bounded subscription teardown only after retaining an actual provider terminal. - Journal the exact governed-wait trigger and disposition before provider interruption. Recover that wait independently of a later saved answer, replay retained accounting, and reject mismatched or unproven terminal evidence. - Give settling governed turns a bounded window before shutdown detaches their controller. - Keep fuzzy external app matches alongside installed capability matches instead of forcing an unrelated provider question for a generic query. - Return up to twenty exact active catalog tool names after an invalid request, after eligibility checks; still reject the request without granting access or creating an approval. - Require retained provider terminal proof before settling a governed wait, including when complete usage arrives before stream closure/error/timeout. Retain harmless numbered cancellation events so restart replay stays contiguous. - Isolate accounting-test OpenCode config from the host plugin directory. - Add regression coverage and document the accounting, restart and connection-search behavior. ## Verification Current PR source: `0cf08efd75f8fb23f7989beda6dbda92587088bf`. The live matrix below measured frozen `09a776bcb1f77422156f8be11e13f8c29f43e7f7`; later review fixes are verified separately and do not relabel those runs. - Repository typecheck and build pass. - Current runner runtime and cancellation suites: 191 tests pass. Six new regressions cover stream end/error/timeout without provider-stop proof and contiguous cancellation acknowledgement/request replay; all six failed before the fix. The existing bounded cleanup case now explicitly supplies terminal proof. All 31 adapter accounting tests pass with isolated fixture config. - New checkpoint-rebinding and approval-criterion suites: 65 tests pass; runner HTTP integration: 29 tests pass. Unchanged executor/control-plane suites: 640 tests pass; database-backed connection suites: 68 tests pass. - Current retained evidence verification covers 222 file hashes across all fifteen original result artifacts. The three-case [published report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-37651896525-1/index.html) and all eight screenshot hashes verify. The [three-case recovery report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-37662587356-1/index.html) and all six screenshots also verify; the nine-result campaign did not publish. - Evaluation support: 1,805 Vitest tests pass, one skipped; 128 Node tests pass. Eval typecheck and catalog discovery pass. - Full local repository unit run was interrupted before the follow-up edits after three tool-access failures and one runner HTTP failure. Those failures pass in isolation; the 09a full run was interrupted after one rapid Slack callback-ordering failure and seven skill-service failures. All eight pass both isolated and with full-runner environment settings, and all 74 skill-service tests pass together; the subsequent full run reported two 15-second OpenCode accounting timeouts and was stopped with exit 130 to apply review fixes. The timeouts reproduce while copying this host’s 61 MB OpenCode config. All 31 tests pass after isolating config inside each fixture without increasing timeouts or changing assertions. A complete local full-suite pass is not claimed. Repository-wide CI also passes on the final review-fix head in [run 37669185952](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37669185952). Earlier database-skipped diagnostics and the older ENFILE run are retained and are not full-suite passing evidence. - Three-case live campaign [37651896525](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37651896525) passes all three original grades on frozen source 09a: 55/55 checks, eight succeeded run records, complete accounting receipts, matching checkpoint identities and no pending approvals. Campaign [37653533353](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37653533353) adds nine original passes (173/173 checks, eighteen succeeded records) on the identical source. Its other three jobs failed before runner assignment or any step while GitHub could not load the paid environment; those original infrastructure failures are retained. Campaign [37662587356](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37662587356) completes only those unstarted cells: all three original grades pass (57/57 checks, six succeeded run records). All fifteen exact cases now pass on source 09a: eight FAIL → PASS, seven PASS → PASS, zero new overall failures and zero pending pairs. Total current evidence: 285/285 checks and thirty-two succeeded run records, complete accounting receipts, matching checkpoint identities, no pending approvals or retry records. Earlier campaigns retain forty-seven additional run records and two known same-run recovery attempts; actual provider-call counts and invoices remain unknown. The nine-result campaign skipped publication and its public URL returns 403; original artifacts remain retained. Previous ba9 campaign [37645656840](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37645656840) completed 2 PASS / 1 FAIL: Claude restart/approval and Codex decline pass, while OpenCode resumes but times out searching for exact tool names and never creates the access card. That failure and incomplete cancelled-run accounting remain preserved; the new catalog error guidance targets this observed dead end. Campaign [37642957312](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37642957312) remains 0 PASS / 3 FAIL and exposed the now-corrected cross-run marker leak and unknown-criterion approval gap. The original baseline remains 7 PASS / 8 FAIL, first repair 2 PASS / 3 FAIL, and second repair 0 PASS / 3 FAIL. All fifteen selected cases are qualified by their original grades in this bounded trial. These live grades belong to 09a. Its twelve governed-wait checkpoints retain matching same-turn terminal fingerprints, but passing artifacts omit detailed event journals; the later six adversarial regressions qualify the new terminal-proof and replay guards separately. Final-head repository CI passes. [Fresh Greptile review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15471#issuecomment-6044369780) is 5/5, confirms both findings are fixed, and reports no new actionable issues. All review threads are resolved and the PR has no merge conflicts. ## Risks - Governed cancellation drains accounting for up to fifteen seconds. Restart detachment gives a settling batch up to twenty seconds to finish. An incomplete receipt or unproven provider terminal still prevents successful qualification. - Claude prices are estimates, not invoices. The estimate assumes standard global API pricing and uses a conservative cache-write rate. Unsupported models, billers, and billing modes remain unpriced. - Approval identity matching must remain scoped to the current run and the requested approval. It does not authorize execution of a declined call. - Original baseline and final candidate have different merged master context. Exact-case outcomes are before/after observations, not isolated causal attribution to this repair. - No schema migration, fixture, oracle or grader change. Search-result guidance now treats fuzzy external matches as suggestions. Existing app authorization and provider-consent checks remain required. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with code editing, terminal tools, and test execution. The exact deployment identifier and context window 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 (191 current runtime tests and 31 accounting tests; interrupted full-suite history and CI coverage are disclosed above) - [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>	2026-10-07 14:43:07 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	06484b3c41	fix: preserve conversation retries through execution cleanup (#15463) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Recovery schedules bounded retries after a provider disconnects. > - A stopped run can still hold its environment lease while cleanup runs. > - Retrying before that lease is released cancels the new run before it starts and spends another retry. > - Restoring the task can also send the worker repair instructions from an already resolved recovery action. > - This pull request preserves the waiting retry and removes settled recovery instructions from later wakes. > - The task can continue after cleanup without an operator repairing the same incident again. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A legacy conversation run disconnected while it was doing ordinary work. Its environment cleanup took longer than the retry delay. Two retries were cancelled before dispatch with `execution_reconciliation_required`. Those cancellations exhausted the failure budget. After an operator restored the task, the wake still told the original worker to repair the runtime and hand the task back to itself. **Expected behavior** Cleanup waits preserve the pending attempt. The same retry can continue after ownership is released, subject to all current gates. Once a recovery action is resolved or cancelled, subsequent task wakes omit its repair instructions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Fail a legacy conversation run while its environment lease remains in `pending_cleanup`. 2. Schedule a bounded retry and run promotion before cleanup releases that lease. 3. Repeat the scheduler sweep. Before this fix, retries promote and then cancel without starting. 4. Resolve a stranded-task recovery action and build the restored task wake with that action ID. Before this fix, the wake still includes the settled repair instructions. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced with database regressions against `ceabc3bc880` on master. Related: #15019 restores a skipped assignment handoff after lease release. #15235 filters stale handoff evidence in the recovery sweep. This change preserves an existing scheduled conversation retry and corrects restored wake content. It does not create a new handoff wake. ## What Changed - Keep an unstarted legacy conversation retry on the same durable row while prior execution ownership remains active. Recheck after 30 seconds without increasing retry accounting. - Return a queued retry to scheduled state if it encounters that hold at the claim gate. Retain its issue claim and publish the status change. - Record one local lifecycle diagnostic per blocking run. Remove that wait marker on promotion. - Include recovery action metadata only while the referenced action is active or escalated. - Return an explicit `waiting` response and the saved schedule when Retry now meets cleanup. Show the wait inline without a false success or disabled button. - Add database, rendered-prompt, route, and UI regressions. Document the execution and run-log contracts. ## Verification - Five cleanup and restored-wake regressions fail against the original production code. The Retry now route and UI regressions also fail before their correction. - Related retry, dispatch, stale-queue, and recovery suites: 321 tests pass across seven files. All ten focused cleanup/restored-wake cases pass after rebase. The final dispatch adjustment passes all 46 adapter tests. - Retry now routes and affected UI suites: all 46 tests pass. The tests cover repeated clicks, the saved schedule, unchanged accounting, promotion after release, and no false success or error state. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `pnpm build-storybook`, and `pnpm check:token-gates` pass. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was started and then stopped after the final commit passed all GitHub CI test shards. No complete local full-suite result is claimed; CI supplies the complete test result for the final commit. - Final head `6f1058a332c039e33c4f002b296d20a5554e760e`: all 55 GitHub checks are green or intentionally skipped. Apex review is 5/5 after two reviews, with no unresolved threads. The PR has no merge conflicts. ## Risks The wait applies only to unstarted legacy conversation retries. Native runs and non-conversation execution keep their existing recovery rules. Cleanup must actually release ownership before execution can resume. The wait does not fix a cleanup service that never finishes. Promotion and dispatch still enforce cancellation, reassignment, pause, budget, and reconciliation gates. No schema change is required. The Retry now response adds a `waiting` outcome; the shared contract and all three UI controls handle it. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-6, with repository analysis, tool use, and local code execution. The runtime does not expose the precise serving model ID or context window. ## 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 (focused suites; complete final-head test coverage in CI) - [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>	2026-10-07 11:15:49 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	8cfedd7df8	fix(runner): restore task monitors and durable timed waits (#15446) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their task execution. > - Agents need a durable way to return to work after a delayed check. > - The issue monitor scheduler already provides a one-shot wake for an assignee. > - Native runners reject generic execution-policy writes and had no bound monitor tool. > - Scheduling alone is insufficient because native completion also needs to accept a timed wait. > - This pull request adds an authorized monitor tool and connects it to completion and the existing scheduler. > - An agent can now schedule its next check, end the run, and resume on the same task. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native runner could not set its own task monitor. `call_api` correctly rejected execution-policy writes, while `schedule_wake` had no production binding. `paperclip_finish` also rejected monitor waits. **Expected behavior** A standard native run can set a one-shot monitor on its current task or another accessible task assigned to the same agent. After a confirmed schedule on the current task, it can yield. The scheduler later delivers `issue_monitor_due`. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a standard native task. 2. Ask the agent to check the task again later and end its current run. 3. Inspect available tools and try the generic issue execution-policy update. 4. Observe the missing native tool and the lifecycle-write denial. Related PRs: #14680 concerns monitor notes in the shared wake prompt. #11919 changes attempt-limit scope. This PR adds native scheduling and completion authority and retains the existing cumulative attempt bounds. It does not depend on either PR. ## What Changed - Add provider-neutral `set_task_monitor` with a default current-task target, future timestamp, required notes, existing bounds, and explicit clearing. - Check company, task visibility, ownership, runtime permissions, work mode, and active-run authority. Preserve review-only restrictions. Reject the reserved server-owned quota-recovery name before saving or accepting a native wait. - Commit the monitor, audit event, and retry receipt together. Retry receipts survive a successor run without re-arming cleared or consumed timers. - Permit `paperclip_finish` to yield to a persisted monitor. Recheck ownership and the schedule when committing final disposition. Release execution without an immediate continuation. - Preserve due monitors during native execution. Fence wake admission and consumption against replacement, clearing, reassignment, and completion. Preserve unrelated review policy. - Expose scheduled and consumed monitor instructions in task context. Update provider schemas, Rust validation, generated contracts, and execution documentation. - Add an opt-in live Codex smoke script with isolated data and explicit run/session/runner/process evidence. ## Verification - Repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed after rebase. Server typecheck passed again after review fixes. All CI test shards pass on `3def77b1b`, including runner TypeScript/Rust, server, serialized server, workspace, and browser tests. All CI gates are green, including the canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 on the same commit with zero unresolved threads. - The local monolithic `pnpm test:run`, started before the rebase, was interrupted after current-head CI test coverage passed. It is not counted as a standalone full-suite pass; the focused local regression suites passed. - Targeted server tests cover scheduling, replacement, clearing, policy preservation, cumulative bounds, cross-run retries, permissions, provider-neutral discovery, review restrictions, completion authority, and scheduler/finalizer races. - Runner contract/catalog/semantic tests and Rust terminal-tool tests cover the new operation and monitor completion. - Live Codex test passed twice (latest live run on `e0bcd63e6`) in a temporary database and workspace, with a 300,000 ms warm window. First run `67bd7709-c089-4d4a-9d2b-0d6b618a34b0` yielded at `2026-10-07T13:15:03.274Z`. Second run `97c323f9-595a-4cc5-a007-db5a2fbb937c` started at `13:15:30.952Z`, received `issue_monitor_due`, and completed the same task. Exactly one monitor wake was recorded. - Both live runs used native session `7b1dd753-1c9b-4e7a-b22f-a125dbc3748c`, runner `e90d9a1b-3502-4ee3-b15e-edc024c555d4`, provider session `01a11680-6d01-70c0-9a55-db7246ed66c3`, and PID `64218` with the same process start time. This proves warm reuse for that local Codex test, not only successful scheduling. - Reproduce the paid live test with `node --import ./server/node_modules/tsx/dist/loader.mjs server/scripts/smoke-native-task-monitor.ts --run`, with the installed Codex binary on `PATH` and a valid local login. ## Risks - The scheduler now defers monitor dispatch while the task has an active native run. A stuck run still depends on the existing recovery lifecycle. - Idempotency uses the existing run ledger; no table or migration is added. - Other providers share the tested tool and completion contracts. Only Codex received a live model test. - Existing `call_api` lifecycle restrictions remain enforced. Monitor waits do not bypass task blockers, reviews, or approvals. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with tool use, code execution, and TypeScript/Rust editing. The session does not expose the exact deployed model ID or 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>	2026-10-07 08:41:24 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	faa8e452c7	fix(tasks): stop repeated reminders for historical questions (#15392) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task questions remain saved so a person can answer them later. > - The composer moves an old question into history after a newer human message. > - Native completion still treated every pending question as a required response. > - This caused agents to demand an old answer after the person moved work forward. > - This pull request shares the historical-question rule across context and task execution. > - Agents can finish verified work while the original question remains answerable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15229, Refs #14613, Refs #13130. **What happened?** An agent repeatedly asked a person to answer a question that had moved into feed history. Completion feedback explicitly told the agent to request a response. The saved pending row also blocked task completion. **Expected behavior** A question before newer human direction remains answerable in the feed. Its pending state alone must not require another reminder or stop completed work. A new input blocker, an approval, or a configured review stage must keep its gate. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let a task agent create an ordinary question. 2. Dismiss the question and send a newer task message. 3. Let the agent finish the requested work and submit its completion report. 4. Observe a demand to answer the old question and a retained completion gate. ## What Changed - Add one company-scoped predicate for historical questions. Only later human comments count. Exclude agent attribution, run attribution, system notices, and untrusted source data. - Apply the predicate to completion feedback, native waits, finalization, commit validation, retry validation, blocked routing, and successful-run handoff. - Include question classification and guidance in heartbeat context and both native task-context tools. Add the guidance to fresh and resumed task prompts. - Replace automatic reminders for current ordinary questions with instructions to assess the real blocker, continue independent work, and withdraw obsolete questions through the existing API. - Preserve historical question rows during completion while cancelling their live native source runs through the existing post-commit and recovery paths. Let an authorized human answer them after completion without reopening work or creating a response wake. Preserve cancellation, current-input, approval, permission, credential, connection, and review gates. Add no dismissal storage or migration. - Document the rule in the execution contract and agent skill. Refresh generated capability source anchors. Add database-backed status, context, attribution, and governance regression tests. ## Verification - `pnpm build` passed. The server rebuild also passed after the lifecycle fix. Generated capability contract and inventory checks passed after the agent documentation update. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. Final `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` also passed after the last test additions. - Lifecycle and interaction regressions passed: 224 tests in 3 suites. Context and prompt tests also passed. Final historical-question cases passed (33 tests), native cancellation/recovery cases passed (6 tests), and the existing interaction/confirmation suites passed (72 tests). The full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after more than two hours with unrelated fixture/hook timeout failures; it did not pass. All 52 successful GitHub checks are green on the latest commit, including the complete test matrix; no checks are pending or failing. Greptile is 5/5 and both review threads are resolved. - Regression cases cover the old-question/new-human-message sequence, final task status, answering after completion with no wake, live-run cancellation and crash recovery, current input blockers, both task-context tools, API context, timestamp precision, attribution boundaries, and protected gates. ## Risks - A later human task message makes an earlier ordinary question historical even if its input is still missing. The agent must identify the current blocker and ask only for information that still prevents work. - Browser dismissal remains a local preference. Dismissal without a later human message is not recorded by this change. - No schema change or data migration. Completion retains ordinary historical questions; cancellation still expires them. A completed task accepts historical answers only from an authorized human and creates no response-delivery outbox row. Governed requests retain their gates. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository editing, code execution, and browser diagnostics. 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>	2026-10-06 20:33:13 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	228f0e2807	fix(ui): make pull request review waits visible (#15375) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people supervise agent work and review its outputs. > - A task can wait for a human to review a pull request while an agent schedules checks. > - The PR work product and detected external links use separate display paths. > - A private PR can disappear from the useful sidebar view when its provider lookup fails. > - The monitor countdown says when the next check runs but omits the saved review request. > - This change shows the saved PR and requested review in the task's existing surfaces. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A task kept checking whether a private GitHub PR had merged. Its work product requested board review, but the Properties sidebar used detected external objects instead. The PR URL was stored only in metadata, which the PR refresh path did not read. The composer showed a generic monitor countdown with no PR link or review action. **Expected behavior** Show saved PR links even if provider access fails. During a GitHub monitor wait, make outstanding review requests visible with the next check time and a status-check action. Stop requesting review when a PR merges or closes. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Register a PR work product with `reviewState: needs_board_review` and its URL in `metadata.url`. 2. Schedule an external-service monitor for GitHub. 3. Open the task with external-object lookup unavailable or unable to access the private repository. 4. Inspect Properties and the composer wait strip. Related work: #14469 added rich artifact cards. #8759 addresses attention on monitored task blockers. This change uses the existing work products and monitor action; it adds no blocker or approval mechanism. ## What Changed - Show saved PRs in Properties, including metadata-only links, independent of external-object availability. - Deduplicate equivalent GitHub PR URLs while preserving the saved navigation link, and put explicit review requests first. - Keep provider status and freshness on the combined PR row; keep private PR links usable when lookup fails. - Show the saved PR review request above the composer and in the existing monitor banner during a GitHub monitor wait. - Label the existing monitor action `Check status` and show check failures inline. - Suppress review prompts for merged, closed, or archived PRs even if their review flag is stale. - Refresh PR metadata using `metadata.url` and the existing `repository` alias. - Share saved work-product reads across the thread, Properties, and Artifacts. Refresh GitHub in a separate query and enrich only matching PR versions. - Start a fresh saved-row request on live invalidation so late provider responses cannot hide new artifacts or changed review requests. - Cover stalled GitHub lookups in both panels so refresh latency cannot hide saved work. - Scope monitor-check mutation state to the task so failures and late responses do not leak across navigation. - Refresh GitHub status when the displayed run finishes, including when saved PR rows have not changed. - Clarify that PR review and external release handoffs need a saved human-input interaction with an agent assigned for continuation; a flag, monitor, or handoff comment alone does not create that card. ## Verification - 386 tests pass across eleven affected UI and server suites on `184c7d8746`. Regressions cover saved links, provider status, cold-cache loading, panel reopening, monitor errors during navigation, and live updates during provider refresh. - Three live-update regressions and two run-completion regressions fail before their fixes and pass afterward. These tests use the real API client's GET coalescing and abort handling. - Full repository typecheck and build passed on the merged parent `1a49112dd2`. The latest UI changes pass UI typecheck and token gates; CI also verifies the latest build. Capability contract/inventory checks pass. - Storybook build and browser checks passed before the query race fix. Browser checks cover desktop and 390px mobile review waits, plus video, mixed-file, and empty artifact galleries after background refresh. - The earlier full local `pnpm test:run` was stopped under disk pressure. It reported failures outside the changed suites; an isolated skill-cache run reproduced three existing macOS permission failures. The full local suite was not rerun for this follow-up. - Latest-head CI passes on `184c7d8746`, including the browser shards and canary dry run. Apex is 5/5 with no actionable findings and no unresolved threads. All eight reported findings are addressed. ## Risks - This uses saved PR review state. When GitHub access fails, the saved state can remain stale until the agent updates it. The link remains visible and the status check remains available. - `Check status` wakes the existing monitor owner. It does not merge a PR, accept an approval, or mark the task done. - No schema, permissions, or scheduler behavior changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, repository analysis, code editing, and test execution. The exact deployment model ID and context window were 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 — 277 affected tests - [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>	2026-10-06 16:03:13 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	f2715e02bb	fix(native): surface model capacity errors and retry automatically (#15347) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native runs preserve provider events and results, then decide task state. > - Codex can fail a turn because the selected model is temporarily at capacity. > - Paperclip displayed a generic native-session failure and left the task in recovery. > - A known capacity failure needs a clear message and a durable delayed retry. > - This pull request uses committed terminal evidence, the status-effect ledger, and existing dispatch gates. > - The task can continue automatically without an unbounded retry loop or a model switch. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #13993 adds launcher capacity deferrals before provider startup. This change handles a committed native Codex `serverOverloaded` terminal after provider work has started. **What happened?** A native Codex turn ended with `codexErrorInfo: serverOverloaded` and “Selected model is at capacity. Please try a different model.” Paperclip saved the result, showed a generic failure, and required recovery instead of waiting and retrying. **Expected behavior** Show the capacity error directly. Schedule bounded retries after a short delay. Preserve saved work and honor current execution gates. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a native Codex task. 2. Commit a `turn.failed` event with `serverOverloaded`, then accept a failed result for the same turn. 3. Inspect the task error and its recovery state. The regression test reproduces this without a paid provider call. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against master `16b7db35ffa0f9a95913c8cbdeea3d595435691f`. ## What Changed - Classify capacity failures from committed runner events and the pinned execution identity. Preserve accepted results and display the specific capacity error. - Atomically persist one scheduled successor with the status decision. Retry after one minute, then two minutes. Share the existing failure budget and stop after two automatic retries. - Reuse dispatch gates for ownership, task holds, dependencies, budget, and locks. Wait for predecessor execution, finalization, and cleanup before claiming a retry. - Preserve pending reviewer authority and suppress retries after reassignment or a successor claim. - Consume the failed run's resume receipt and delivered wake input. Rebuild ordinary continuation from the failed run so explicitly resumed tasks can retry without borrowing one-run authorization. - Label scheduled retries “Model at capacity.” Add a Storybook example and avoid duplicate punctuation in the existing retry card. - Add regression coverage and document the runtime contract. ## Verification - Targeted recovery and UI suites: 125 tests passed. Additional final cleanup and lock regressions passed. - Latest-head continuation and authorization regressions: 57 tests passed, including all four capacity integration tests against an isolated PostgreSQL database. - Rechecked all four capacity integration tests with the full runner's isolated `PAPERCLIP_HOME`, config, temporary directory, and serial fork settings: passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. Final server typecheck passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - Browser: checked the real Storybook card. It shows the capacity message, automatic retry time, and existing Retry now action. - `pnpm test:run`: attempted and restarted after an interruption. The resumed run started before the final review correction and was stopped after recorded workspace/native test failures and the five-minute Git streaming timeout already documented on master. Exit 130; no complete local full-suite pass is claimed. Current-head isolated capacity tests and the complete CI suite pass. - A combined local recovery-suite attempt also hit PostgreSQL initialization failures at this macOS host's global shared-memory limit (32 slots). The focused recovery suites passed separately; final-head capacity tests also pass with the full runner's isolated environment settings. - Latest-head GitHub checks: all 56 checks green, including general and serialized test shards, browser E2E, typecheck, build, Runner verification, and canary dry run. No merge conflicts. - Greptile: 5/5 on `813a470b8c18c05aeb7e31e63e573c3a3a2f5cac`, with zero unresolved findings after fixing the resumed-task continuation issue. ## Risks - Capacity retries can repeat a task turn after partial work. They start a fresh provider session with task history and wait for predecessor cleanup. They do not resume the failed turn. - Retries retain the configured model unless an operator changes configuration. Persistent overload consumes the existing failure budget and then needs an explicit retry or model change. - Only run-bound native Codex `serverOverloaded` failures qualify. Usage-limit exhaustion, model/account incompatibility, unbound text, and unknown provider failures retain their current recovery behavior. - No schema migration is required. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact model ID and context-window size are not exposed to this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser verification. No subagents. ## 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 - [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>	2026-10-06 10:59:18 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	63f3aa2dbf	fix(runner): continue restart-interrupted Codex turns (#15297) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native runs retain their provider conversation across server restarts. > - A dead runner can restore a Codex conversation after its active turn is lost. > - The old recovery path synthesized a failed task result from that interruption. > - The task then required operator action even though its conversation and workspace were available. > - This pull request preserves the interruption cause and uses the admitted restart attempt for one continuation in the same conversation. > - The agent can reconcile unfinished actions and complete the current request without resending the original task. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #12845 added native restart recovery. #15042 covers admission during shutdown. #14796 covers legacy shutdown recovery. This change covers a lost native Codex turn after successful conversation restoration. **What happened?** After a server restart killed the local runner, Paperclip restored the saved Codex thread. Runnerd found that the old turn was no longer active. It synthesized a failed terminal and a needs-review result from the last progress message. The transport also discarded the terminal error when it reconstructed thread history. The task failed instead of continuing. **Expected behavior** After proving that the old process stopped and admitting a bounded recovery attempt, resume the current request in the same conversation. Preserve the workspace. Inspect unfinished actions before proceeding. Keep real provider failures, accepted results, intentional stops, unknown unreconciled effects, and exhausted attempts subject to their existing rules. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a local native Codex run and leave its turn active. 2. Kill the isolated runner and provider processes, as can happen during a server restart. 3. Restore the same provider thread with no active turn. 4. Observe the synthetic task failure. The new real-process regression reproduces this boundary with a scripted provider. ## What Changed - Record an explicit recoverable process-loss cause without inventing a task result. - Preserve terminal errors and prior turns in reconstructed provider history. Recover the authoritative saved result when adopting an accepted continuation. - Send one continuation in the same conversation for an admitted dead-runner recovery. Require reconciliation of unfinished commands and external actions. - Persist the interrupted terminal before submission and retain the existing recovery marker across another controller loss. - Keep provider attempt limits, terminal failures, and intentional cancellation behavior. - Add red/green regressions, real process-kill coverage, restart checkpoint coverage, and retry-budget coverage. Document the behavior and run-log evidence. ## Verification - Red: the new native runtime regression rejected with `NativeProviderTerminalFailure` on the original code; the Rust restore regression found a missing recovery cause. - Red/green: if restoring the conversation fails and replacement is allowed, the replacement receives the full task and fresh-session handoff. Both prepared and legacy execution inputs are covered. - Red: a second controller crash after the provider accepted the continuation caused an extra `turn/start`. The regression now proves there are exactly two submissions total: the original and its continuation. - Green: focused runtime, backend, driver recovery, and real-process restart suites (207 tests). After the final history/result changes, driver recovery and real-process restart suites passed again (36 tests). - Green: complete Codex transport suite (186 tests), server restart classification/database integration suites (34 tests), and Rust Codex provider suite (92 passed, 2 ignored). - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on `60141e649`. The subsequent replacement-prompt guard passed the Runner TypeScript check and the complete runtime plus process-restart suites (148 tests). - Local full-suite attempt: `pnpm test:run` reported two failures in the untouched chat integration suite. Both passed individually, and the complete chat suite passed on rerun (1,063 tests). After all remote test shards passed, the duplicate serial local run was stopped with SIGINT; it is not claimed as a full local-suite pass. - Latest-head CI (`b1297dcd4`): 55 successful checks and 4 intentionally skipped checks, including all test shards, typecheck, build, native Runner verification, end-to-end tests, and canary dry run. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37405346303). - Greptile: 5/5 on the latest head, with no unresolved review threads. The PR is mergeable. - The process tests use the real runner binary and a scripted Codex provider. They do not call a live model service. ## Risks - This changes local Codex recovery after process loss. A continuation can execute more work in the retained conversation. Its prompt requires state inspection before repeating an uncertain action; the system does not replay tool calls. - Recovery shares the existing three-attempt budget and one-shot continuation marker. Real failures and older unmarked failed checkpoints are not reopened. - No database migration or API change is required. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The exact model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. - Capabilities: reasoning, source inspection, tool use, code editing, code execution, and test analysis. ## 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>	2026-10-06 07:49:47 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	e99854249c	fix(workspaces): restore rebased sandbox history against its starting snapshot (#15268) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and preserves their work across runs. > - Sandbox execution restores Git history and files to the host workspace. > - An agent can rebase or amend its branch before it finishes. > - Restore currently treats the original and rewritten tips as concurrent work. > - That merge can conflict even when the host has not changed. > - This change uses the starting Git snapshot to accept rewritten history safely. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A successful sandbox turn can end with `workspace_restore_failed` after the agent rebases and pushes its branch. The restore step merges the original host tip with the rewritten sandbox tip. This can recreate conflicts that the agent already resolved. **Expected behavior** Accept the rewritten history when the host still has the recorded starting branch and commit. Preserve concurrent host work through the existing merge and recovery paths. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a sandbox from a feature branch. 2. Rebase that branch onto an upstream commit that changes the same file. Resolve the conflict in the sandbox. 3. Restore the sandbox while the host remains on the original commit. 4. The old implementation attempts a conflicting Git merge and fails the run after the agent finishes. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `cab4263dc9` with a real Git rebase fixture. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server with sandbox execution. Related work: #15005 records restore failure stages. #11638 preserves unrelated imported history with a graft. #10601 handles bundle prerequisites. Those changes do not distinguish a rebase from a concurrent host edit. ## What Changed - Pass the run's starting Git branch and commit into sandbox history integration. - Adopt a related rewritten tip when the host still matches that snapshot. Keep the expected-old-value ref update and bounded retry. - Verify the branch attachment inside a prepared Git transaction while Git holds its ref locks. Abort if a checkout changed the branch. - Check host and sandbox Git identity before warm reuse, including nested repositories. Restage when their tips or branches differ. - Reject host branch changes and unrelated imports after a concurrent host commit. - Retain the existing unrelated-history graft for an unchanged host and the conservative behavior for callers without a snapshot. - Export a full bundle for an intentional reset to an ancestor so restore receives the actual sandbox tip. - Add real Git and sandbox restore regressions. Document the restore contract. ## Verification - Eight Git sync, sandbox restore, and native workspace suites pass: 255 tests. - The new checkout-race and warm-reuse regressions failed before the fixes. Real Git hooks verify that prepared transactions prevent a concurrent HEAD change. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after rebasing onto `984f092ddf` and applying the Apex findings. - `pnpm build` passed on `f5132603d6`. - The earlier `pnpm test:run` attempt reported three `company-skills-service.test.ts` failures on macOS (`EACCES` renaming a read-only staging directory). The same failures reproduced on unchanged master. The broader run was stopped after confirming that baseline failure; it was not a full-suite pass. Those source and test files are unchanged in the current base. - [Apex review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15268#issuecomment-6002549219): 5/5 on `f5132603d6`, requested with `@greptileai apex review`. All three historical findings are addressed and all review threads are resolved. - All CI gates passed on `f5132603d6` (53 successful checks, two skipped). The signoff-policy browser fixture initially timed out waiting for a local process-agent run; its one retry passed without code changes. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37387511152) ## Risks - A recorded starting snapshot now authorizes replacement of related rewritten history. A stale or changed host tip retains the concurrent-history path. Ref writes still compare the expected old commit. - Branch changes and unrelated rewrites after host advancement require recovery instead of replacing host work. - An intentional reset to an ancestor uses a full bundle. Large histories can increase transfer time in that case. - The existing directory merge rules remain in force. The fix does not resolve an earlier failed restore or replay its external actions. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, repository analysis, code editing, and local test execution. The exact deployment model ID and context window were 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 — 255 affected tests; the broader-suite baseline failure is documented above - [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 16:43:15 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	2e67ea8dc7	fix: renew explicit continuation authorization for bounded retries (#14987) ... Preserve exact user-authorized continuation receipts across bounded retries and retain the task claim through owned retry admission. Stop, reassignment, superseding input, and active cleanup continue to block unsafe continuation. Validation: exact-head Greptile 5/5, passing CI, no unresolved review threads, and a clean merge. Detailed verification and limitations are recorded in the pull request. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-05 10:57:57 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	ffe5e9e2a8	fix: retain execution evidence for Retry and saved input (#15033) ... ## 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>	2026-10-03 01:38:57 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9ae3d8db3d	fix: keep pre-dispatch review waits out of execution recovery (#15024) ... ## 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>	2026-10-03 01:00:42 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	215586d127	fix: settle interrupted preparation with a retained cancellation fence (#15022) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A cancelled preparation must preserve history while allowing a new user turn. > - Older preparation can retain its cancellation fence but omit the unwind marker. > - The controller from that older boot is gone, its lease expired, and no provider started. > - Use the same narrow preparation proof for this retained-fence state. > - The benefit is working Retry and saved-message recovery after interrupted startup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15020 and #15015. Related #13293 addresses post-launch recovery. **What happened?** A preparation interrupted before native selection retained `startupCancellation.beforeNativeSelection: true` but no preparation-settled marker. Its owner expired across restart and it had no environment leases. The missing-receipt compatibility rule did not recognize the retained fence, leaving Retry absent and saved messages deferred. **Expected behavior** Admit one new user turn when the preparation evidence agrees, the old controller expired, and cleanup is complete. Preserve previous results and do not replay the cancelled input. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Cancel Paperclip Runner preparation before runtime selection. 2. Retain the cancellation fence without an unwind marker or environment leases. 3. Restart after its old controller lease expires. 4. Send a new message, select Retry, or allow the saved-message worker to reconsider new input. 5. Confirm one successor receives only undelivered input. Repeat with live ownership, invocation evidence, or pending cleanup and confirm execution stays held. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `94f6f3eb4`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated private self-hosted server, built from source. ## What Changed - Accept a retained before-selection cancellation fence in the expired historical preparation proof. - Retain runtime, stage, adapter, ownership expiry, process, event, and cleanup requirements. - Extend Retry, fresh-message, partial-queue, concurrent-worker, and contradictory-evidence tests to both receipt states. - Document recovery when the preparation-settled marker was not retained. ## Verification - Red: five exact-state regressions fail on the parent commit. - Green: all 203 continuation tests pass, including the five new regressions and 13 additional negative evidence cases. Process recovery and queued-comment routes add 413 passing tests. - A read-only candidate service check against the retained live run returns Retry eligibility without changing any task state. - An unrelated containment assertion failed once in CI. All 85 tests in that route suite pass locally and the CI shard passes on rerun. - Workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. - Final head `48240de3d`: all 54 CI checks pass, two optional Storybook checks skip, and Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. The complete local monolithic suite is covered by sharded CI; the earlier local run was stopped after a workspace case failed, and that case passed in isolation. - After merge, deploy the exact merged commit and verify an actual agent reply through the task composer. ## Risks A cancellation receipt alone must not certify that provider execution stopped. This path still requires unresolved preparation, no native identity or coordinator, an expired controller from another boot, no launch or provider evidence, and completed environment cleanup. Current-boot preparation remains held until it settles. No schema 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>	2026-10-03 00:04:21 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	94f6f3eb47	fix: recover historical interrupted native preparation (#15020) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A task conversation must accept new user input after an interrupted startup. > - Native startup begins with a legacy preparation row before runtime selection. > - Older builds did not retain the startup cancellation receipt on that row. > - The immutable adapter claim and expired controller can still prove that no provider started. > - This pull request uses that narrow proof for explicit Retry and saved user input. > - The benefit is a conversation that recovers after an upgrade without repeating old work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15015. Related #13293 covers retained process evidence after provider startup. This change covers interrupted preparation before native runtime selection. **What happened?** After an upgrade, a task stopped during native preparation can still show automatic recovery stopped. A new user message saves but does not start. Retry is absent because the historical run has no cancellation receipt. **Expected behavior** Offer Retry and admit new user input when immutable run evidence proves that no provider started and cleanup is complete. Preserve incomplete or contradictory evidence as a recovery hold. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Retain a cancelled run with the Paperclip Runner adapter claim, an unresolved runtime, and the preparing stage. 2. Keep its old controller boot ID and expired lease. Retain no native identity, coordinator, result, process identity, or provider events. 3. Upgrade from a build that did not save the startup cancellation receipt. 4. Send a new user message or select Retry. Confirm that one fresh turn starts. 5. Repeat with an active controller, a provider launch, or unfinished cleanup. Confirm that execution stays held. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `cc67d4e1d` with a historical interrupted preparation row. **Deployment mode** Authenticated private self-hosted server, built from source. ## What Changed - Recognize historical interrupted native preparation from immutable run evidence and an expired controller from another server boot. - Reject adapter invocation evidence in the startup proof. Keep process and environment cleanup checks. - Apply the same proof to saved user messages in the bounded recovery worker. - Recheck saved-message eligibility under the existing task and run locks. Keep normal ownership, decision, pause, and budget gates. - Add regression tests for Retry, a new message, concurrent saved-message recovery, and contradictory evidence. Document the compatibility rule. ## Verification - Red: Retry, new-message recovery, and saved-message recovery fail on the parent commit. - Green: 185 continuation tests, 335 process-recovery tests, and 78 queued-comment route tests pass. Two additional red regressions cover partially delivered saved queues and pass after the admission fix. - Workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. - Final head `48db53f4f`: all 54 CI checks pass; two optional Storybook checks skip. Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. - The local monolithic `pnpm test:run` was stopped after CI passed. One unrelated workspace case failed in that long run; all three workspace reconciliation cases pass in isolation. No complete local monolithic pass is claimed. - After merge, deploy the exact merged commit and verify recovery through the normal task composer. ## Risks Historical compatibility could grant a new turn without enough startup evidence. The proof requires an immutable native adapter claim, an unresolved preparing stage, no result or native identity, an expired controller from another server boot, and no invocation or provider evidence. Environment cleanup remains mandatory. The fix does not replay old input or change historical run results. No schema 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>	2026-10-02 23:08:05 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	cc67d4e1d8	fix: preserve steering and recover stopped task conversations (#15015) ... ## 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>	2026-10-02 22:07:14 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	22cea6b2e6	fix: bound sandbox bridge waits and flag silent runs sooner (#14979) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Sandbox agents exchange input and output through bridge control commands. > - A provider can stop responding to a command even when it receives a timeout. > - These small commands can inherit a four-hour agent lifetime and block input or teardown. > - The board also calls a silent run healthy for the first hour. > - This pull request bounds bridge control waits and surfaces silence sooner. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A sandbox run can remain active when a bridge control command never returns. The shared helper passes a timeout to the provider but does not enforce it on the host. It also accepts the agent's hours-long timeout. Output silence remains `ok` for an hour and becomes `critical` only after four hours. **Expected behavior** Bound short bridge operations even if the provider never settles. Report failed input delivery through the existing shutdown path. Warn after five silent minutes and escalate after fifteen. Keep normal agent command limits and require verified termination before releasing execution ownership. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Use a sandbox runner whose bridge read or input-upload promise never settles. 2. Set its configured timeout to four hours. 3. Observe that the old queue client never returns or rejects. 4. Inspect a running task with 35 minutes of output silence. The old summary still reports `ok`. **Paperclip version or commit** Base commit `d6d88b9de2`. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server with sandbox execution. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Shared command-managed sandbox bridge, including Codex ACP sessions. The informational silence thresholds apply to active runs across adapters. Related: #14889 recovers stalled Daytona output streams; #14485 retries explicit gateway failures during input delivery. This change bounds short control operations whose provider promises never settle. It does not add tool replay or automatic cancellation for output silence. #6297 proposes configurable per-agent silence thresholds; this patch only changes the existing defaults. ## What Changed - Enforce at most 30 seconds per bridge control shell command on the host and provider, including callback startup and shutdown, process-session launch, and payload setup. Preserve shorter configured deadlines and launch environments. - Keep the long-lived agent command outside this deadline. Use a fixed timeout diagnostic without command payloads. - Surface suspicious output silence after five minutes and critical silence after fifteen minutes. - Decouple the shared-workspace holder cutoff from warning thresholds and preserve its existing one-hour value. - Add regressions for hung reads, a late upload response, failed input delivery, exact warning boundaries, and fresh output clearing warnings. - Update the adapter guide and execution contract. ## Verification - The three new queue-client regressions fail on the unchanged base and pass with this patch. - Final callback bridge and sandbox session suites: 214 passed. These cover hung reads, writes, startup, shutdown, process-session launch, payload setup, and the separate long-running agent limit. - Stdin ordering and shutdown suite: 56 passed after the lifecycle change. - Daytona and watchdog coverage passed in the earlier focused runs. Across the focused suites, 602 distinct tests pass. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed. Server and adapter typecheck/build also passed after their respective follow-up changes. - `pnpm test:run`: attempted and stopped after known local failures. Four chat/email cases used an external ancestor skill path, three skill-cache cases failed on macOS, and one wakeup case timed out. The wakeup case passes alone (1 passed, 27 skipped). This run spanned the workspace-cutoff follow-up and also failed its new holder case; a fresh final-head workspace suite passes all 19 tests. The interrupted run is not a full local-suite pass or final-head verification. - A filesystem queue-drain test failed once during the lifecycle rerun and passed on the complete two-suite rerun. It uses the filesystem client, outside the changed command-runner path. - Complete CI on `ff2212c235`: 53 successful checks and two expected skips, including the full test suite and canary packaging dry run. No failed or pending checks. - Greptile reviewed `ff2212c235` at 5/5. All review findings are addressed, no threads remain unresolved, and the branch has no merge conflicts with `master`. - `git diff --check` and a scan of added text for secrets and private identifiers passed. ## Risks - A bridge control operation that needs more than 30 seconds now fails, even if the caller selected a longer run lifetime. Agent commands retain their own limits. - Timing out a provider promise does not cancel the remote operation or prove it stopped. Existing execution settlement still owns termination verification. No uncertain tool action is replayed. - Quiet healthy runs display warnings sooner. Existing snooze, continue, and false-positive dismissal controls still apply. Silence alone does not cancel a run, create review work, or change assignments. - No schema or API shape change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window 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 change-specific 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>	2026-10-02 15:29:41 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	7a52dcdc74	fix: repair MCP validation and cancelled execution recovery (#14951) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The tool gateway gives agents access to connected services. Recovery controls what happens when a run stops. > - Generated tool names can exceed the provider limit after the MCP client adds its prefix. > - The same invalid definition can fail each automatic retry. A cancelled run can also hold saved messages without showing its cause. > - This pull request bounds tool names, stops configuration retries, and retains cancellation evidence. > - It shows the stopped run and admits saved input only after the existing safety checks pass. > - The benefit is a clear recovery path that preserves operator Stop and prevents duplicate message delivery. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A long connected MCP tool name makes the provider reject the entire request. Automatic recovery repeats the invalid request. Separately, unexpected legacy cancellations can leave saved input behind a recovery hold. The notice does not identify the stopped run or its cause. **Expected behavior** Complete MCP names fit the provider limit. Tool-definition errors require configuration repair. Cancelled runs retain their source and reason. The recovery notice shows the cause and saved-message count. Verified unexpected cancellations can start a fresh turn through the existing admission checks. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign an App gallery connection with a long application key and tool name to a Claude agent. 2. Start a run. The provider rejects a name over 128 characters, including its MCP prefix. 3. For cancellation recovery, stop a legacy provider turn without an operator Stop request and send a user message while the recovery hold is active. 4. Inspect the recovery notice and the deferred message queue. **Paperclip version or commit** Rebased onto master at `cf8ad63c806685bfd7c48e3ed4a919d61a7c55f1`. **Deployment mode** Hosted or self-hosted server with legacy Claude or Codex execution. Related public work: - Refs #14017. That PR caps name segments. This PR preserves existing short names and uses stable hash aliases for long complete names. It also covers classification and recovery. - Refs #4510. That PR adds a cancellation-source column. This PR records bounded evidence in the existing run result, without a migration. - Refs #12552 and #4506. Those PRs suppress recovery after operator cancellation. This PR preserves operator intent and uses the existing continuation gates. ## What Changed - Bound gateway names with the full provider prefix in the 128-character budget. Retain the original upstream tool name for dispatch and permissions. - Classify invalid tool definitions as configuration failures before diagnostic redaction. Stop automatic retries and continuation attempts for that error code. - Persist cancellation source, expectedness, initiator, reason, and time. Preserve recorded Stop intent when adapter results arrive. Report unexpected started cancellations with closed diagnostic labels. - Show the run cause, saved-message count, and Inspect run link. Offer Continue for eligible unexpected cancellations. Require verified provider stop, empty tool inventory, ownership, and the existing pause, budget, approval, and dependency gates. Use the existing queue for single delivery. - Add regression coverage and update the execution, MCP gateway, and run-log documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - Ran `pnpm test:run` and completed its workspace and serialized groups. Initial resource and timing failures passed on isolated reruns. All 149 serialized route suites passed. - Reran the changed server, adapter, and UI suites after the rebase. Coverage includes long-name upstream dispatch, configuration retry suppression, cancellation evidence retention, privacy labels, oversized run projection, and concurrent saved-message delivery. - `pnpm test:e2e tests/e2e/legacy-failure-continuation.spec.ts` passed all six browser scenarios. The recovery notice shows the run cause and inspection link, and each recovery entry point reaches one new response. - Added database-backed checks for active, removed, paused, unavailable, and disabled chat connections. The final continuation and recovery-notice suites passed 167 tests. Externally bound chats hide board Continue and show a usable next action. - All 55 GitHub checks passed on `42afbf1371dcaeb72646e3d8f65c19ff7cddf8de`. Two unrelated Storybook jobs were skipped by their normal conditions. Greptile reviewed that commit at 5/5 with no findings and no open review threads. ## Risks - Long tool names change to aliases. Existing short names stay compatible. The original connection and upstream name remain the dispatch authority. - Invalid tool definitions no longer get automatic retries. An operator must repair the configuration before a new attempt. - Continuation changes apply only to positively identified unexpected legacy cancellations with complete empty tool inventory. Operator Stop, unknown historical cancellations, outstanding tools, and unverified provider termination keep their holds. - No database migration. The added projection fields are optional. Cancellation reason and initiator IDs remain local run evidence; Sentry receives only closed source and initiator-type labels and expectedness. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository editing, shell execution, and GitHub tool use. The runtime does not expose the exact model variant or 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>	2026-10-02 13:47:59 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	8ec4b84e1c	fix(chat): resume messages after failed runs without duplicate delivery (#14857) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A user can send a new message after a native run fails. > - The server checks that the old execution has stopped before it starts a fresh turn. > - A failed run can retain a result accepted before checkpoint or cleanup failed. > - The continuation gate treated that saved result as active recovery and held the new message forever. > - This pull request removes that false liveness signal while retaining controller, process, environment, and authorization checks. > - Live staging then exposed a second defect: chat admission created a successor without consuming the original deferred receipt, so completion delivered the message again. > - Consume that exact receipt atomically with admission, while preserving separate turns for later chat messages. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A new user message stayed in the queue with `controller_settling` after the previous run had reached `terminal_failure`. The old coordinator had no lease owner but still had a `resultId`. Its remote environment had a verified stop receipt. **Expected behavior** Start one fresh turn after execution has stopped and normal admission checks pass. Preserve the failed run and its accepted result as history. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Accept a native result, then fail checkpoint or cleanup and exhaust recovery. 2. Retain the result ID on the terminal failure record and stop the execution environment. 3. Send a new user message. Before this fix, it waits forever for the finished controller. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced in a database-backed regression test on `26900655b`. **Deployment mode** Server with a native runner and remote sandbox. Local process stop checks also apply. Related: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/14775. Searched existing PRs for retained-result continuation fixes; no duplicate found. ## What Changed - Remove the retained-result veto for terminal failures. - Keep controller ownership, successor, process, environment cleanup, pending decision, and ordinary admission checks. - Add regressions for retained results, active execution, missing stop evidence, and delayed remote cleanup. - Atomically consume the resumed receipt in agent chat, even though chat does not coalesce other queued messages. - Reproduce completion-time duplicate promotion, race cleanup against periodic recovery, and prove a subsequent chat message keeps its own turn. - Document that a saved result does not make a terminal failure active. - Keep exhausted workspace export on its separate repair path, tested through the production finalizer. ## Verification - Red: retained-result admission failed with `controller_settling` before the original fix. The new chat-specific regression then reproduced duplicate promotion when the first reply finished. - Green: 406 tests across native continuation, workspace-export recovery, and the wake-queue module passed on `cbc531cc0`. - The chat regressions exercise real Postgres transactions, simultaneous recovery callbacks, successful completion, the production queue-drain use case, and repeated drain attempts. A distinct follow-up remains a separate turn. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on `cbc531cc0`. - The earlier full local test run encountered a timeout and follow-on failure in unchanged AI connection-adoption tests; all 50 tests passed on isolated rerun. That local run was stopped after the full CI test matrix passed on the earlier head. - All 54 CI checks passed on `cbc531cc0` (2 skipped), including the full test matrix and browser shards. One unchanged interaction-route test returned HTTP 500 on its first CI attempt; its full 84-test file passed locally, and the failed shard passed on one targeted rerun. - Greptile reviewed `cbc531cc0`: 5/5, no unresolved findings. - Live staging first verified that the original saved message resumes and receives a successful response; that test exposed the duplicate now covered above. - Deployed exact commit `cbc531cc0410e1ef6e8811c6c5c014c3528351ed` to the affected staging workspace; deployment verification, health, authentication, and startup recovery passed. - Submitted a fresh message through the browser. The agent replied in 39 seconds; server records show exactly one successful run, native phase `committed`, no error, and an empty queue. A later check more than a minute after completion found no duplicate run. ## Risks The change affects admission after native execution failure and consumption of a resumed deferred receipt. A fresh turn must never overlap the prior execution, and consuming one chat receipt must not absorb later messages. Tests retain the controller, process, and remote-stop guards. This change does not migrate data, apply an old result, or reset the old retry budget. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6). The exact runtime model identifier and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, database-backed tests, 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>	2026-10-01 14:43:02 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	dd7fc1f90a	fix: raise the native journal read limit to 256 MiB (#14711) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native sessions persist control-plane state so they can resume safely. > - The state includes committed provider history needed for recovery. > - The server, runnerd recovery, and durable control plane validate this state before trusting its identity. > - Their differing 64 MiB and 192 MiB limits can reject a valid journal before recovery. > - This pull request aligns all three local state limits at 256 MiB. > - Larger files remain bounded, while recovery can read larger valid histories. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13882 Refs #14312 ## What Changed - Raise the server and runnerd recovery limits from 64 MiB to 256 MiB, and align the durable control-plane limit from 192 MiB to 256 MiB. - Add coverage for a valid history above 64 MiB and rejection above 256 MiB. ## Verification - Matching server recovery passed with more than 64 MiB of actual committed event payloads (128 events with 512 KiB deltas). - The real runnerd exact-authority resume regression with the test Codex provider passed with 193 MiB of valid JSON whitespace appended. It crosses the former 192 MiB core limit and confirms the same provider identity. This exercises the runner process and durable control plane with a simulated provider, not a live OpenAI API call. This test used approximately 1.15 GiB peak RSS. - The actual runnerd reader accepted valid 256 MiB JSON and rejected valid 256 MiB + 1 byte. The reader call took 231 ms; the fresh process peaked at 1,244 MiB RSS. - Server tests reject mismatched identity above 64 MiB and files above 256 MiB. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `git diff --check` passed. - Full local `pnpm test:run`: 13,730 passed, 575 skipped, 7 failed across 6 files. All failures were embedded PostgreSQL startup errors after five attempts. They affected agent hiring, instruction revisions, environment images, reviewed chat bindings, issue monitoring, and legacy continuation authority. The focused journal tests passed; the latest pushed head passed all ordinary CI checks. Superagent is the only blocking check. ## Risks - **Open review concern:** Greptile is 5/5, but Superagent is `ACTION_REQUIRED` with two P2 findings on the server and runnerd readers. Both flag the increased synchronous parsing and memory cost. This PR keeps the requested fixed-limit change small. It does not add a worker parser or a process-wide memory budget. This resource tradeoff needs review before merge. - Large state parsing is synchronous and can consume several times the file size in memory. - Remote checkpoint archive and expanded-size limits remain 64 MiB, so this change alone does not make larger remote checkpoint transfers portable. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with delegated assistance from `gpt-6-luna` at high reasoning effort; tool use and code execution. The GPT-6 context window is not exposed in this task runtime. ## 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>	2026-09-30 10:08:25 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	1778075155	fix(server): continue unfinished tasks after status replies (#14626) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native runs report their task outcome through a structured finish result. > - A Board comment can permit a passive wait for the next response. > - That exception accepted reports that also admitted blocking unfinished work. > - The task then stayed In Progress without a runner, and recovery treated the wait as healthy. > - This pull request rejects that contradiction and uses the existing bounded continuation path. > - Real wait conditions and protection against obsolete requests remain in force. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An agent answered a status inquiry with `yielded` and `response_wake`. The same result listed blocking remaining work. The server accepted an indefinite wait without a question, approval, dependency, or pause. No further run was queued. **Expected behavior** Unfinished ordinary tasks must continue or have a recorded reason to wait. A status reply alone must not suspend the work. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Add a Board status inquiry to an unfinished assigned task. 2. Submit a successful native result with `yielded`, `response_wake`, and `remainingWork[].blocksCompletion: true`. 3. Leave the task without any real wait condition. 4. Observe that the old policy preserves In Progress with no continuation and suppresses recovery. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced in the native status policy at `da887ea3e`. The branch is based on current master. **Deployment mode** Authenticated server with the native Paperclip Runner. Related work: Refs #13338 (native response waits and recovery). Refs #12071 (separate legacy recovery and retry-state work). This change fixes the native unfinished-response-wait exception. ## What Changed - Reject contradictory finish reports while the provider can still correct them. - Route accepted unfinished response waits through the existing one-follow-up continuation budget. Repeated incomplete results create a visible recovery action. - Preserve questions, approvals, dependencies, pauses, conversation lifecycles, and superseded Board requests. - Recheck the current Board source in the decision transaction before queuing repair. - Let normal recovery reconsider old committed waits that report blocking work and still have a current source. - Add policy and database regression tests. Document the rule. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/native-runtime/status-arbiter.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts --no-file-parallelism`: 346 tests passed, no skips. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`: passed. - Final head `8f0824d9bb4d631f2347f8afffe5fff6d574cb69`: all CI checks green (54 passed, 2 intentionally skipped), including all general tests, serialized server suites, runner tests, eight E2E shards, and the canary dry run. - Greptile: 5/5 on the final head, with no unresolved review threads. - The broad local `pnpm test:run` encountered an unrelated timing failure in `workspace-runtime.test.ts` (waiting for managed process-tree listeners). That test passed on an isolated rerun. The duplicate broad run was stopped; the complete CI suite passed on the final commit. - The transaction-race regression reproduced an obsolete continuation before the fix. All 12 source-change cases now pass, covering passive waits, corrective continuations, and exhausted-repair decisions. ## Risks - Agents that previously parked unfinished ordinary tasks must now continue or record an actual wait condition. - Old contradictory waits become eligible for normal recovery. Existing ownership, budget, pause, and supersession checks still apply. - The rule uses the structured blocking-work flag. It does not infer omitted work from prose. - No schema, dependency, or UI change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and test execution. The session does not expose a more specific deployment identifier or 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>	2026-09-29 16:51:50 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2de43fc909	fix(issues): keep agent mentions as context and defer personal app authorization (#14577) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Each task has one assignee. Explicit assignment and review requests select who should act. > - An agent mention started another agent on a task it did not own. Native attachment staging then rejected that run. > - Allowing that run through startup could also let two agents work on the same task. > - Mentions should identify relevant context. They should not start work or forward comments to other tasks. > - A personal app installed on a shared agent must also wait until tool use to resolve the current user's grant. > - This pull request removes mention dispatch and keeps missing personal app credentials from blocking startup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native agent mentioned on another agent's task failed with `paperclip_runner_attachment_staging_not_authorized`. The source task could already be complete. A nearby optional-app warning was a separate problem: personal app tools were excluded when their shared health state required attention. **Expected behavior** An agent mention is context only. It does not wake the agent, take ownership, or copy a comment onto another task. Normal feedback still reaches the assignee. Assignment and explicit review requests still dispatch work. An unavailable personal app does not block startup or produce a startup warning. Tool use requests the current user's authorization and never uses another user's grant. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign a task to agent A. Post a comment that mentions agent B, including a comment that closes A's task or references B's child task. 2. Confirm the comment retains its agent link and B receives no run or deferred wake. A can still receive normal feedback. 3. Install an active personal MCP connection on B. Give only Alice a grant and leave shared health at `error`. 4. Explicitly assign work to B for another user. Confirm it can finish without using the app. 5. Ask B to use the app. Confirm its tool call shows an inline connection request for the current user. Related work: Refs #11144. This change uses the existing execution-time personal grant resolution. ## What Changed - Remove mention dispatch from standalone comments and issue updates. Remove implicit forwarding of parent comments to a mentioned worker's child task. - Ignore new requests with the legacy mention wake reason before creating a run or deferred request. Preserve already accepted queue entries, which can combine assignments and feedback with a later mention. - Remove the native mention admission, staging, and finalization exceptions from this PR. Native task ownership checks remain intact. - Keep active, installed personal app tools available despite shared health errors. Remove optional-app startup warnings. Tool execution retains the current user's grant and policy checks. - Update agent instructions and product/API docs. Refresh generated capability source anchors. ## Verification - Red: comment-route regressions reproduced extra agent wakes and child comment forwarding. A separate regression proved that cancelling by the last coalesced reason could drop an accepted assignment. - Green: the targeted route, wake queue, heartbeat, workspace, responsible-user, MCP discovery, and HTTP gateway suites passed. The final queue and heartbeat rerun passed 104 tests, the restored queue adapter passed 56, and both comment-route suites passed 135. These include accepted assignment preservation, rejection of new mention requests, and normal assignee feedback. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. The full local `pnpm test:run` attempt was interrupted for review/CI fixes, so it is not claimed as a completed local pass. It exposed a cleanup timing race in the concurrent-mention assertion, now fixed and verified across 10 repetitions. CI also exposed an obsolete test waiting for the removed mention lookup; it was reproduced and fixed, then both comment suites passed. Final full-suite verification is through CI. - Final head `bd9ea4cb05a8f081c54e017760a8999f9ea6ef44`: 54 checks passed, 2 Storybook checks intentionally skipped; no pending or failing checks. Full CI includes general and serialized suites, all 8 browser shards, runner verification, typecheck, build, and canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit, with no unresolved findings. - One unchanged Cursor adapter test hit its 10-second CI timeout. All 5 tests in that file passed locally; one retry of its CI shard passed all 674 tests (3 skipped). The aggregate verification gate then passed. No code or timeout was changed for that retry. - Live browser check: inserted a structured mention with the picker on a human-owned task. The saved link remained visible. Database checks found zero new runs and zero wake requests. - Live Codex runner check: explicitly assigned that task with the unavailable personal app attached. The run succeeded and committed completion without using the app or creating a connection card. - Live browser follow-up: asked the assignee to call PostHog and mentioned another enabled agent as context. Only the assignee ran. It succeeded and displayed the existing inline connection card. Only Alice's grant existed; the run belonged to a different user. - The HTTP regression covers tool discovery with no provider calls or connection cards, first use returning the current user's authorization request, and successful retry after that user's grant exists. - App checks use an isolated local fixture and a fake MCP provider. They do not use production app credentials. ## Risks - Intentional behavior change: workflows that used mentions to wake agents must use assignment, a bounded child task, or an explicit review request. - Already accepted queue entries retain their prior rules. An old entry can combine assignment or feedback with a later mention; its last reason cannot safely identify mention-only work. New mention requests create no run or deferred wake. - Personal apps with a shared health error remain discoverable. Actual tool use still requires the responsible user's grant and existing policy gates. - No database migration or public API schema change. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. - Live native-run verification used `gpt-6-astra` through the Codex provider. ## 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>	2026-09-29 12:49:01 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	992f720262	fix: make runner task context ownership explicit (#13753) ... <!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100). --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task descriptions, comments, continuation data, skills, and execution rules enter several agent adapters. > - The same source can be rendered by more than one automatic input carrier. > - Failed resumes can also rebuild input from stale or compact context. > - This pull request gives each Paperclip-owned source one delivery owner and preserves the required transport boundaries. > - It adds deterministic adapter, interaction, runner, and browser tests for these boundaries. > - The benefit is more predictable context delivery with explicit evidence for later live qualification. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #13144 removes a duplicate environment payload and bounds wake lists. Related: #11360 addresses Hermes resume behavior. This pull request preserves compatible active-session formats while repairing context ownership and stale question creation. **What happened?** Task descriptions and comments could enter more than one automatic context block. Native transports could wrap a complete model input in a second task envelope. Some legacy and gateway adapters could omit the owned assignment on ordinary tasks or rebuild a failed resume with stale compact context. A continuation could also request a question after newer human comments had arrived. **Expected behavior** Each task or comment source has one automatic model-facing owner. Distinct comment IDs and repeated wording remain distinct. Fresh fallback attempts rebuild the required full context. A question request is rejected when newer queued human direction makes it stale. Harness access policy remains owned by execution configuration. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Build a task with a description and current comments. 2. Capture the actual adapter or runner input. 3. Compare source ownership and task-envelope nesting. 4. Queue a human comment before a continuation requests a question. 5. Trigger a failed resume and inspect the fresh retry input. 6. Run the focused adapter, interaction, runner, and browser checks. ## What Changed - Add shared prompt-section selection at the provider-attempt boundary. - Deliver owned assignment context through native, legacy CLI, ACP, gateway, cloud, Pi, Kimi, Grok, Gemini, OpenCode, Cursor, OpenClaw, and Hermes paths. - Rebuild full or compact context after resume recovery changes the attempt. Add native and Claude ACP tests of actual recovery requests. - Preserve custom templates, loaded instruction files, execution policies, and older active-session formats. - Record continuation source metadata and reject stale question creation under the issue-row lock. - Add explicit Product E2E context-integrity profiles, prerequisite gates, credential-isolation checks, and report fixtures. - Bypass service-worker forwarding for same-origin Vite development modules. A real Chromium test fails with resource exhaustion before the repair and passes after it. Production asset caching keeps its existing policy. - Add browser diagnostics and service-worker module-loading regressions. - Add an explicit zero-retry eval option. The default retry behavior remains unchanged. Each campaign records its effective policy. - Remove the model-facing working-directory sentence from four prompt builders. Existing workspace, sandbox, permission, and custom-template configuration remains unchanged. - Align the everyday workflow assertion with the current 47-entry catalog. Compared with current upstream master, the branch carries the context-ownership implementation and its tests, the explicit context-integrity catalog and evidence harness, and the focused browser regression checks. ## Verification **Merge assessment:** focused regression evidence supports merge. This is not full completion of the original broad qualification matrix. The maintainer has authorized merge after fresh verification of the master integration. - Current head: `bbd52f82114eabf09bc7b1a7e97d54a5b43bbc00`. This integrates current master `2f585ef26a1814fa209715242d1ca791b63e4c4e`. All 14 conflicts are resolved. Cancellation checks, workspace finalization, native Grok support, and both sets of tests are retained. - Current-head Greptile: **5/5**, with no blocking findings. The review names this exact commit. All **59 reported checks are terminal: 55 successful, 4 skipped, zero pending or failing**. This includes the full root general and serialized suites, separate runner checks, typecheck, build, canary, browser E2E, Docker, and security checks. The successful legacy security status is included in that total. - After integration: workspace typecheck and full build passed. Separate runner checks passed: **2,160 TypeScript tests (10 skipped), 582 Rust tests, and 39 preparation checks**. Other passing checks include 621 Product E2E harness units, 376 focused shared/adapter tests, 160 real-database/API tests, 86 Hermes tests, 18 browser-support checks, and Product E2E typechecking. The complete root suite passed in CI. The duplicate local monolithic root run was stopped after that CI result; it is not counted as a completed local pass. - New native recovery coverage retains full assignment, completion contract, and explicit skill selection after safe replacement, for old and prepared input formats. Full native session test file: **136/136 passed**. - New Claude ACP coverage captures actual fresh, resumed, and missing-session fallback requests. It verifies one assignment copy, comment order, identical text under distinct comment IDs, and full fallback context. Full file: **33/33 passed**. Both affected TypeScript checks passed. - Existing deterministic tests cover source revisions, approval and trust boundaries, completion validation, custom templates, compatible sessions, standalone driver wrapping, and maintained adapter transport requests. - Provider-free browser support: **17/17 passed** after the master merge. Service-worker unit tests: **33/33 passed**. The module-overload regression failed before the repair and passed after it in real Chromium. ### Fresh live comparisons The new batch ran exactly four Product E2E attempts. **All four passed on the first attempt; no retries.** Each has six terminal matchers plus the existing browser lifecycle and invariant checks. | Exact case ID | Control | Candidate | |---|---|---| | `core-compatibility.runner-codex.local.plan-revise-accept` | Passed | Passed | | `local-session-integrity.runner-acpx-claude.local.structured-question-restart-resume` | Passed | Passed | The plan case checks a revised canonical plan and revision-bound approval before completion. The question case restarts the server before submitting the answer, then verifies the continuation completes. Control source is `dfa4e1bda8d50a1a01746603251a9128dbe9d0d6`. Candidate source is `79fcdb5dece501d28064ea9da306603881b46f0c`. They use identical frozen definitions and provider versions: Codex `0.156.0` with `gpt-5.6-sol`; ACPX `0.13.1` / Claude ACP `0.73.0` with `claude-sonnet-5`. The September 24 head added master browser recovery and test-only changes. The September 28 head also integrates newer master changes, including cancellation, workspace finalization, and native Grok. These are frozen-source live results, not exact-head live runs. The candidate received one description copy where the control initially received three. The submitted initial plan envelopes were 7,969 versus 19,097 characters. Question envelopes were 7,592 versus 18,919. These are structural measurements, not whole-provider token or dollar savings. ### Earlier evidence and failed attempts - The preceding fresh batch has four effective passing pairs: OpenCode comment continuation and assigned skill, native Codex comment continuation, and native Claude comment continuation. It retains **11 attempts: eight passed and three failed**. - Original failures remain recorded: missing local PostgreSQL library links before task creation; host-sleep cleanup after task/page checks passed; and a Claude **control** session-open rejection before a model turn. Setup was repaired identically on both worktrees. The permitted unchanged infrastructure retries passed. The underlying Claude provider startup error was not retained and remains unknown. - Older R2 retains **17 passes and one failure** across 18 attempts, including eight both-pass native/legacy Codex/Claude pairs. Its OpenCode blank-page failure led to the service-worker repair. R2 is historical evidence: master changed the native fixed prompt and removed duplicate wake environment data afterward. - The September 24 CI run initially failed one unrelated preview readiness test (`ECONNREFUSED` on its local fixture). Its test and production code match master. Isolated local verification passed **28 tests, 3 skipped**. One unchanged CI retry passed the full shard: **831 passed, 1 skipped**, including all **31 preview-exposure tests**. The aggregate CI gate passed afterward. The precise startup cause remains unknown; a port race is a hypothesis, not a proved cause. ### Limits The original wider profile/workflow matrix, repeated trials, and remote Daytona qualification are incomplete. These results support a focused merge recommendation, not statistical equivalence or universal harness qualification. Some usage receipts are missing in both variants, so no token or dollar savings are claimed. The $500 ceiling was preserved using conservative allowances; failed attempts and unknown charges remain in the ledger. Reproduce the focused additions with `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/acp.test.ts` and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner exec vitest run src/native-session-runtime.test.ts`. Full checks use `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, `pnpm build`, and the separate runner checks. Paid evals require the frozen definitions, profiles, and credentials; do not use `--all` as a substitute for the selected cases. ## Risks - Context placement changes can affect model behavior. Deterministic checks cover the selected paths, but live qualification remains incomplete. - The stale-question guard can reject a request when queued human comments arrived during the run. This is intended. - New stored inputs and model envelopes retain compatibility readers for older active sessions. - Custom templates may intentionally repeat content. - Removing a model-facing working-directory sentence does not change filesystem, command, sandbox, or permission configuration. - The worker bypass applies only to same-origin development module paths. Cache-policy tests preserve private-response handling and production asset caching. Mounted HTTP fixture changes remain test-only. - This PR does not claim measured token savings or statistical equivalence across every harness. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, exact model gpt-6-astra, with repository tools and code execution. Bounded supporting work used gpt-5.6-luna and gpt-6-luna. The serving context-window size is not exposed in this task. ## 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 using the required issue fields - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run the focused local checks and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect these changes - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [x] All current-head Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups for the current head - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-28 14:49:14 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	8751e2de46	fix(ui): distinguish finalization recovery from live observation (#14326) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task board shows which recovery actions are active. > - A native run can stop while a person must repair its workspace. > - The board previously called that state “Recovery in progress.” > - The label implied that work would continue without operator action. > - This pull request derives the label from the recovery owner and live continuation. > - Operators can distinguish scheduled recovery from a repair that needs attention. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A blocked task showed “Recovery in progress” after native finalization stopped and no automatic continuation remained. **Expected behavior** Show “Recovery needed” for an idle board repair or when no live recovery path exists. Show “Recovery in progress” while the recorded continuation can run, including an explicitly admitted export whose exact callback is executing even if the old recovery action remains board-owned. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Complete a native run whose workspace export cannot be recovered automatically. 2. Inspect the task recovery action and badge. 3. Compare the board-owned action with the old “Recovery in progress” label. Related work: #14314 serializes native workspace finalization and fences stale recovery outcomes. This change reports the recovery action that currently owns the task. ## What Changed - Show “Recovery needed” for board-owned active-run recovery unless the exact native export callback is positively verified as executing. - Require the native continuation run and a live or future continuation before showing progress. - Project native activity from the exact company, source issue, and run. Include active workspace export while the original heartbeat remains failed. - Require an executing callback before using a running export row as evidence. Preserve activity for long exports and clear it when the callback joins. - Give native resume its own card explanation. Preserve ordinary watchdog observation behavior. - Remove the redundant ownership sentence from all six recovery-card explanations that used it. - Document the labels and add regression cases for stopped, scheduled, and active recovery. ## Verification - Copy-only follow-up (`c68aef04c`): all 167 focused recovery UI tests and token gates pass. No UI occurrence of the removed sentence remains. `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and current-head CI pass (54 successful checks, two optional Storybook checks skipped). Greptile is 5/5 with no open review threads. The duplicate local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the full CI suite passed; it did not complete locally. - Original regressions: seven failures before the change, then 52 focused cases pass. - Review regressions: seven UI failures and nine database failures before the follow-up. All 75 database/API recovery tests, 167 UI tests, and 18 workspace lifecycle/finalizer tests pass. A further three RED cases cover explicit board retry activity; one RED case rejects orphaned running export rows after controller loss. Wrong company, issue, run, service, phase, and completed-operation cases remain inactive. - Final recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and complete local suite coverage pass. Embedded PostgreSQL startup/socket failures passed in isolated retries with the canonical test environment; no expected behavior was weakened. The recovery regression added during the earlier full run passed in its final complete 75-case file. - Before the copy-only follow-up, all 56 CI checks passed on `c2f84cd89c905cda85c53aaf5bb83b7250900fe6`; Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. The final native-activity staging repeat passed on integrated source `2bedd0f23bf4698b1f8b818f6796900647030427`. - Verified on a separate staging instance: a real failed Daytona workspace export retains its board-owned repair action and displays “Recovery needed” in the task list. The repair card remains actionable without starting another provider turn. - Real staged export-only repair: the actual task list showed “Recovery in progress” while the original run had a positively identified running export operation, then Done after exact copyback of all 20,000 nonce-bound files. The accepted result and full provider session/turn/terminal envelopes remained unchanged. All 17 independent final checks passed; the browser downloaded the exact 19-byte result. The separate fixture was cleaned up with independent provider-absence verification. A control transport process restarted during repair; it did not submit another provider turn. - Final deployed-source repeat on `d884e1ab046cc76004e35e6091e9e6e2c918c9eb`: explicit per-turn ephemeral Daytona allocation, actual browser export repair, and a saved full activity projection referencing the exact executing export operation with no scheduled retry. The task list showed recovery in progress, then Done; all 21 final checks passed, including 20,000 exact host files, unchanged provider provenance, and provider deletion only after committed copyback. The downloaded 19-byte result matched independently. This integrates #14334; no source change was required here. ## Risks - The label depends on the persisted recovery action. A separate runtime defect can still stop work; this change makes that condition visible. - Future recovery kinds must supply a valid continuation path before they can display progress. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with code execution, browser testing, and subagent tool use. The runtime does not expose an exact serving model variant or 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>	2026-09-28 09:33:39 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	be43c23e2d	fix(recovery): preserve pending native result finalization (#14219) ... Preserve native coordinator ownership while accepted results await workspace copy-back, assessment, or arbitration. Check that ownership in the terminal update so a coordinator recorded after the liveness read is also protected. Keep terminal task authority and exhausted-retry cleanup unchanged. Validation: 28 focused recovery tests, local typecheck/build, 52 passing CI checks, and Greptile 5/5 with no open findings. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-27 00:22:49 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	640dee1802	fix(runner): acquire reusable leases when switching to warm sessions (#14187) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates agent work across task turns. > - Warm runners need reusable sandbox leases. > - Lease acquisition read only the environment reuse setting. > - Startup then read the agent's new warm setting and rejected the ephemeral lease. > - This fix requests reuse before acquisition, with provider checks intact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Switching an existing native runner task from per-turn to warm fails with `runner_warm_environment_requires_reusable_lease`. Environment `reuseLease` defaults to false. Acquisition therefore creates an ephemeral lease, and capability narrowing correctly denies reuse. **Expected behavior** Changing lifecycle between turns requests a compatible lease without replacing the task workspace or changing the shared environment. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a native runner task with inherited lifecycle and environment reuse disabled. 2. Change the agent from per-turn to warm. 3. Continue the task on a reusable-capable sandbox provider. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `a6c4e7a`. Related: #12904 established warm workspace continuity; this fixes the earlier lease-selection mismatch. ## What Changed - Pass agent settings into acquisition and derive a run-scoped reuse request. - Respect explicit environment lifecycle overrides; leave other adapters unchanged. - Keep provider capability, ownership, cleanup and restore gates intact. - Add orchestration and database-backed transition tests; document the contract. ## Verification - Red: three new assertions failed before the fix. - Green: 156 tests pass in environment-run-orchestrator, environment-runtime, native-sandbox-lifecycle, and environment-execution-target-capabilities. - Database-backed regression proves ephemeral → reusable → resumed lease, same workspace, and unchanged stored environment. Provider RPCs are mocked, not live Daytona. - `git diff --check` passes. - Latest-head CI passes typecheck, build, tests, runner checks, E2E, and canary dry run. Greptile: 5/5; no open threads. - Recovery uses the persisted lifecycle. Direct regression: red before, six cases green after. CI runs the added Vitest cases. - Full local checks were unavailable (missing dependencies and earlier memory limits). ## Risks Warm mode now requests retained resources despite an environment's default `reuseLease:false`. Existing idle timeout and cleanup still apply. Unsupported providers remain denied. No migration, credential [REDACTED], or shared-environment mutation. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex agent; reasoning, code editing and test execution. Exact model ID and context size were not exposed to this run. ## 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 available) - [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 relevant issue 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 [REDACTED] or instance-derived details - [x] I have run targeted 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>	2026-09-26 21:23:33 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	b2e9e82f05	fix: stop remote Grok runs before continuing queued messages (#14100) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The execution service owns each run and saves messages sent while it runs. > - Interrupt must stop the current executor before it delivers those messages. > - Remote Grok commands did not register the host cancellation control. > - A cancelled task run could still write Done and prevent queue recovery. > - This pull request connects remote cancellation and revokes cancelled run writes. > - Saved input can use the existing queue admission rules after verified cleanup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Interrupting a queued message marked a remote Grok run cancelled before its sandbox stopped. The old run could still post a reply and mark the task Done. Its saved follow-up remained deferred behind execution recovery. **Expected behavior** Stop revokes run write authority and waits for verified termination. Saved messages remain durable and enter one successor through normal admission after cleanup. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a task with `grok_local` in a remote sandbox. 2. Send a follow-up and use Interrupt while the command runs. 3. Let the old command attempt a task status update after cancellation. 4. Observe the task disposition and the saved message queue. **Paperclip version or commit** The gap is present in master at `d3e0f0a238`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated server with a Daytona sandbox. Related work: #14028 and #14046 handle bounded continuation. #13291 covers infrastructure interruption and verified remote cleanup. #13332 addresses atomic recovery holds. This change handles direct Grok operator cancellation and stale task writes. ## What Changed - Register remote Grok cancellation before preparation. Keep command ownership until the host confirms sandbox termination. - Reuse the sandbox cancellation boundary for the direct CLI invocation. Reject fresh attempts after cancellation and preserve workspace restore failure evidence. - Reject writes from cancelled task JWTs and runs with a pending stop. Preserve diagnostic reads and existing conversation error codes. - Recheck run authority under a database lock before task updates and interaction responses commit. - Preserve authorized handoffs that stop their own run. Only the server-issued stop receipt for that request permits the final task update. - Add tests for hung commands, unverified stops, early cancellation, copy-back failures, late Done, late interaction responses, authorized handoffs, exact lease receipts, and one queue successor across concurrent restart sweeps. - Document the cancellation and write-authority contract. ## Verification - Targeted adapter, cancellation-boundary, authentication, queued-message, interaction-service, and activity-route tests passed. The expanded run passed 214 tests; one new test had an incomplete fixture. After correcting the fixture, all 8 selected follow-up cases passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed on `179c86caf1bf0d89914a503d46e24af7e4b8c557`. - `pnpm build`: passed on the same commit. - `pnpm test:run`: the general-server group completed with 13,521 passed, 99 skipped, and 18 failed tests. It then stopped, so the remaining local groups did not run. Five Slack, email, and wake-batching failures passed on focused reruns after correcting the local environment. The remaining 13 failures reproduce as `EACCES` on rename in unchanged skill-cache code on macOS. Two custom-image suite setup hooks also failed to start embedded PostgreSQL after the machine exhausted shared-memory slots; all 31 tests in that file passed on rerun after the local resource issue was resolved. CI covers all test groups. - CI: 53 checks passed and 2 were skipped on the latest commit, including the aggregate verification gate. The last server shard passed on its single rerun after a preview-server startup timeout. The affected file also passed locally with 28 passed and 3 skipped. - Greptile: 5/5 on the latest commit. Both review threads are resolved. - No live deployment or staging task mutation has been performed. ## Risks - Stopping the sandbox can prevent file copy-back. The result preserves workspace restore failure evidence; termination does not imply restored files. - If provider termination fails, the adapter keeps ownership of its outstanding command and does not acknowledge Stop. - The write restriction now applies to ordinary cancelled tasks. Reads remain allowed. Task and interaction checks add a shared run-row lock to agent mutations. An exact server-issued receipt permits the task request that stopped its own run to complete its handoff. - Existing terminal tasks are not reopened automatically. An operator must correct a historical late Done before its saved queue can continue. - No schema migration or UI change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and test tools. The precise backend revision 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>	2026-09-26 17:07:07 -07:00