2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	7e6d512597	fix(onboarding): make chief-of-staff hiring reliable (#13317) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The first agent helps the board define work and hire other agents. > - That agent can have the general role while its instructions require hiring skills. > - Missing skills and blocked schema discovery make valid requests fail. > - Repeated confirmation and invalid waiting guidance can turn these failures into extra runs. > - This PR supplies the required skills, opens read-only schema discovery, and corrects the guidance. > - The agent can complete an authorized hire while company approval and duplicate checks still apply. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13068 — the first-task onboarding flow that this change repairs. Refs #12029 — related drift between the sandbox allowlist and bundled hiring guidance. This PR adds schema access; it does not replace the earlier hiring-route fix. **What happened?** A general-role onboarding chief received hiring instructions without the core hiring skills. Sandbox requests to the documented OpenAPI endpoint failed. The agent then guessed question and hire payloads. The persona required new confirmation after validation errors and described waiting states that agents cannot set. **Expected behavior** A direct request authorizes the requested hire. The chief asks only for material missing details, uses valid API payloads, and completes the task. Formal company approval gates still apply. A saved human-input card gives the task a valid waiting state. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an onboarding chief with role `general` through the board. 2. Ask it to hire a friendly robot with a supplied name and responsibilities. 3. Check its assigned skills, schema requests, question cards, hire requests, and final task state. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on the first-task onboarding implementation after #13068. The live local verification used this branch at `112f44610`. **Deployment mode** The original failure used a hosted sandbox with legacy Codex ACP. Live verification used an isolated local instance and real `codex_local` execution. Queue and HTTP/2 transport access is covered by automated tests. ## What Changed - Give board-created onboarding chiefs the existing core skills regardless of role. Preserve explicit skill version pins, including aliases. Keep ordinary general-agent defaults and authorization checks. - Allow exactly `GET /api/openapi.json` through both sandbox bridge transports. - Publish validator-tested question, free-text, hire, and waiting examples. Regenerate the runner API reference and capability inventory. - Clarify direct authorization, material ambiguity, and correction of confirmed pre-creation validation failures. Preserve uncertain-outcome reconciliation, duplicate protection, and company approval gates. - Align disposition instructions with agent permissions and the saved human-input waiting path. ## Verification - After rebasing onto current `master`: 69 targeted server tests, 110 queue/HTTP2 bridge tests, and 4 capability inventory tests passed. These cover core skill defaults, version pins, actor restrictions, schema access, published examples, hire validation, idempotency, and approval gates. Waiting recovery tests and live question flows also passed before the rebase. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed again after the rebase. Frozen dependency installation and both generated capability checks passed. - Ran the full `pnpm test:run` suite. The initial run had 14 failed server files due to local database resource limits, a missing built test fixture, and socket failures. All 14 files passed after fixture repair and isolated retries. UI, CLI, workspace packages, database tests, and all 145 serialized server files passed. - Real one-request hiring replay: one hire, one successful run, task done in 2m16s. No repeated approval or recovery escalation. - Real two-turn browser conversation: start with an unspecified hire, then supply a name and friendly robot responsibilities. One clarification card, one hire, two successful runs, task done in 3m27s of execution. No failed writes, confirmation cards, or recovery actions. - Assigned the hired robot a welcome-message task through the browser. It produced a warm message under 100 words and finished in one successful 66-second run, with no questions or recovery actions. - The two-turn flow still asked an optional preferences question and gave a technical final reply. These are remaining presentation limits. - Greptile: 5/5 on `b71f83ba2`, with zero unresolved review threads. Fixed its generator finding and passed 1,655 published-example/runtime API tests plus server typecheck. All latest-head CI checks are green (32 passed; 2 unrelated Storybook checks skipped). The signoff-policy browser test initially timed out while waiting for an approver run. Its shard passed on one rerun without code changes. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34698211049). ## Risks - Onboarding chiefs receive more default skills. Ordinary general agents retain existing defaults, and explicit versions take precedence. - Prompt guidance can affect model behavior. The live replays are examples, not a guarantee that every model follows the guidance. - Retry guidance applies only when validation confirms that nothing was created. Uncertain outcomes still require checking existing agents. - No database migration or new public endpoint. Existing company boundaries, approval gates, and bounded recovery remain in force. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-6-astra`, with reasoning, tool use, code editing, and live browser verification. The exact context-window size is 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>	2026-09-12 12:59:42 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	5bddff0920	feat(runner): add guarded API search and call fallback (#13003) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - The new runner gives agents dedicated tools for common tasks. > - Some API operations and parameters have no dedicated tool. > - Agents need a controlled way to find and use those operations. > - This pull request adds API search and calls through the real server routes. > - Existing tools remain the preferred path. The new tools are disabled by default. > - Paired tests measure correctness, tool choice, cost and time. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Paperclip Runner contracts, production tool authority and the server API catalog. **Problem or motivation** The runner cannot use much of the API described by the old Paperclip skill. A generic HTTP client would also let agents bypass runner control rules. **Proposed solution** Add `search_api` and `call_api`. Resolve calls from the mounted API catalog. Use server-held, run-bound credentials. Preserve route checks and runner lifecycle rules. Keep the tools disabled until an operator enables selected companies. **Alternatives considered** A dedicated tool for every endpoint would add a large initial prompt. An unrestricted HTTP tool would weaken authorization and replay controls. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the native runner tooling. The repository owner requested this design and implementation. The roadmap and related open PRs were checked. No duplicate API escape-hatch PR was found. ## What Changed - Register two compact fallback tools in canonical contracts and provider projections. - Build deterministic API discovery from OpenAPI, mounted experimental routes and the old skill reference. - Execute bounded JSON, text, file and download requests through authenticated HTTP routes. - Recheck active runs, company access and work modes. Block runner lifecycle, scheduling, credential and approval bypasses. Keep routine annotation collaboration available. - Retain mutation receipts. Report uncertain outcomes without blindly repeating writes. - Add a company rollout gate and a durable eval worker with complete cost accounting checks. - Record child-task creation in the activity log with the agent and run. - Add contract, authorization, file, replay and real runnerd/PRP/HTTP tests. - Document rollout gates and paid coverage limits. The companion eval repository retains immutable attempts and reports. ## Verification - Final app commit `da58370524c3626a744eec20164397c5fb6ba9ef`: all 32 checks passed; the unrelated Storybook visual check was skipped. Greptile 5/5; no unresolved review threads. - Full Linux build and recursive typecheck passed. Repository tests were run by project and serialized shard; all 143 serialized server suites passed. - Runner TypeScript: 1,599 passed, two skipped. Rust release: 451 passing test reports. Conformance and replay parity passed. The required API check passed 837 tests, including runnerd → PRP → authority → real HTTP. - Bindings cannot enable API tools without the explicit deployment flag. Unit and real-authority tests prove the default-off boundary. - The standalone API check builds and stages its own binary. It passed after existing staged and debug binaries were removed from the test container. - UI and CLI tests passed. Initial environment failures (missing jq, Docker overlay file identity, and parallel linker memory pressure) and focused passing reruns are retained. The macOS full runner suite has platform-specific failures; Linux is the qualified full-check platform. - Eval harness: 27 tests passed; existing CI discovery ran 86 tests with two unrelated skips. Credential export rejection is tested against the actual report command. - Luna and OpenRouter Sonnet each passed 60 common-workflow runs: ten workflows, three repetitions per arm, zero unnecessary API fallback. - Sonnet passed 11 selected capability/contract cases after fixes. Gemini passed three smoke cases. DeepSeek exceeded the 120-second limit and remains unqualified. - Luna's two cost flags received focused follow-up. The original flags and a later n=1 latency flag remain visible. Sonnet had no cost or latency increase above 20%. - The catalog contains 785 entries; 58 were exercised across all stages. Most operation probes remain unrun and some need additional fixtures. Authored probes do not establish successful coverage. - Total conservative accounted cost: $9.875960. Active paid-campaign time: 88.16/90 minutes. No missing accounting. Later security and harness fixes have provider-free verification; no paid validation is claimed for those revisions. - Inspect the [qualification report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/blob/codex/seach-call-api-tools/evals/runner-api-tools/reports/2026-09-07-production/READINESS.md) and [verification record](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/blob/codex/seach-call-api-tools/evals/runner-api-tools/reports/2026-09-07-production/verification.json). ## Risks - This is a broad authenticated API surface. Keep the default-off gate until an operator selects initial rollout companies. - Paid coverage is incomplete. Small regression samples do not prove all workflows are unchanged. - A timeout or server failure can follow a committed mutation. The result reports an unknown outcome and requires state inspection. - The new definitions add prompt tokens. The report retains cost flags and cache variation. - No database migration is required. - Repository rules require code-owner approval before merge. Technical CI and automated review are complete. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-6 assisted with code, tests and review. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. It used reasoning, tool calls and code execution. Eval models: `gpt-5.6-luna` with low reasoning, `openrouter/anthropic/claude-sonnet-5`, `openrouter/google/gemini-3.8-flash`, and `openrouter/deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731`. Attempts retain runtime versions, model identity, usage and source provenance. ## 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>	2026-09-07 14:14:43 -05:00