mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-05 12:29:37 +01:00
3e82aeaa6098de841b1e57730a76ca5a9cd1dc4f
9
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
cb75c9510c |
test(evals): restore chat setup and pin secure-entry guidance (#18914)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and keeps credentials under human control. > - Agents discover supported operations through existing API and connection help. > - The measured secret-entry case chose external provider setup instead of native secure entry. > - The reviewed help distinguishes these actions and keeps the same permissions. > - Two related help changes explain recorded progress and partial team installation. > - The first remote setup found stale reporting-lock metadata on trusted master. > - This PR pins the candidate and renews that existing lock correction for narrow remote checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18909. Refs #18780. The previous measurement did not complete the requested native secret-entry handoff. The next representative is case 580 on the existing TestOps plan 102 and job 100. Case 610 can use the same source for a separate representative. The progress-help change does not claim that case 466 passes. ## What Changed - Pin immutable candidate `b1ea76b286b870bb62a80eebf3fe00feed6f12c1`, which retains the approval-link fix from #18909. - The candidate adds only reviewed secret-entry guidance, three API help changes, and the matching SDK source registry entry. Its delta from the approval-link candidate covers three files. - Update the launcher snapshot target and expected target test. - Record the actual new SDK compilation and its one changed runtime JavaScript file. Preserve the previous qualification as history. - Refresh only the existing reporting-lock policy and patch from the prior reviewed lock to current master. The helper, actual lockfile, credential rules, and candidate source stay unchanged. - Keep all 244 case rows, inputs, clocks, model, private evidence controls, and held runtime cases unchanged. ## Verification - The owning secret help checks passed: 47 server/shared tests and 31 Secrets UI tests. The real discovery search failed before the help change and passed after it. - The owning progress and team-install search regressions each passed with their full 2057-test runner API suite. - In the candidate, the existing `scripts/ensure-plugin-build-deps.mjs` freshly compiled shared and plugin SDK outputs and exited zero. The emitted guidance consumer passed. Measured output changes contain only the guidance JavaScript, its declarations and maps, and two build receipts. - The old registry and default source proof rejected the changed input. After the existing registry generator updated that one entry, the 506-input check and default source proof passed. Runtime, compiler, parser, Zod, scanner, and canary certificate pins did not change. - All 51 affected SDK tests and all 20 input/build custody controls passed. One initial suite failed to load a missing local dependency; that setup failure is retained. The run with the existing package dependency links passed. - The three existing TestOps contract, adapter, and manifest test files passed: 47 tests, zero failures. - The first case-564 attempt stopped before credentials or model execution: the trusted controller lock had moved through normal dependency updates while its reporting-lock metadata remained stale. That attempt has no original native grade and is not a product failure or a PASS. - The existing lock-refresh command generated the exact reviewed correction from lock `54a81b2e` to current master lock `7540075e`. All seven correction, tamper, and refresh tests pass. The actual current-controller frozen install with lifecycle scripts disabled and both reporting/private-transfer imports pass. The frozen candidate still accepts its unchanged own lock. An initial offline install found an uncached package; the regular frozen install passed. - Fresh CI and review for the renewed head are pending. Local help checks do not establish a native agent outcome. No new TestOps PASS is claimed. ## Risks Help can improve discovery without changing the agent's final choice. The representative runs must test that remaining gap. The candidate retains the prior catalog application base plus the reviewed fixes. It does not refresh or qualify the full catalog. Automatic model retries remain zero and the authorized concurrency cap remains eight. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` through Codex. Capabilities used: source analysis, code integration, compilation, and local validation. The host does not expose the context-window limit. The model under evaluation remains OpenCode/OpenRouter `deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017`. ## 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 - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
github-actions[bot]andlockfile-bot
|
4eaa435bf4 |
chore(lockfile): refresh pnpm-lock.yaml (#18414)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses a dependency lock for reproducible builds. > - Dependency changes on master need matching lock entries. > - Paid eval reports also pin a reviewed offline correction. > - Reports must install before paid model work starts. > - This automated PR keeps the lock and report proof together. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Dependency manifests on master changed after the last committed lock refresh. **Expected behavior** Frozen installs must match those manifests. Eval reports must retain matching offline lock proof. **Steps to reproduce** Run a frozen install before and after this lock refresh. ## What Changed - Refresh the dependency lock from the manifests on master. - Include the matching offline report correction and hashes. ## Verification - Pinned pnpm resolution completed with lifecycle scripts disabled. - The report proof refresh accepted the reviewed committed baseline. - The workflow rejected changes outside the lock and report proof files. ## Risks The lockfile bot merges this PR without CI or review when every added package version is at least 3 days old on npm. Otherwise the PR waits for a maintainer, and the daily refresh tries again. The bot merges only the exact commit this workflow generated from manifests already reviewed on master. Unknown report lock baselines remain blocked. This update changes no permissions or paid enable gates. ## Model Used None — generated by pnpm and the deterministic report-lock updater. ## Checklist - [x] Thinking path and problem description included - [x] Generated lock and matching report proof included - [x] Release-age gate decides between bot merge and maintainer review Co-authored-by: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
github-actions[bot]andlockfile-bot
|
ade402c75f |
chore(lockfile): refresh pnpm-lock.yaml (#18360)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses a dependency lock for reproducible builds. > - Dependency changes on master need matching lock entries. > - Paid eval reports also pin a reviewed offline correction. > - Reports must install before paid model work starts. > - This automated PR keeps the lock and report proof together. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Dependency manifests on master changed after the last committed lock refresh. **Expected behavior** Frozen installs must match those manifests. Eval reports must retain matching offline lock proof. **Steps to reproduce** Run a frozen install before and after this lock refresh. ## What Changed - Refresh the dependency lock from the manifests on master. - Include the matching offline report correction and hashes. ## Verification - Pinned pnpm resolution completed with lifecycle scripts disabled. - The report proof refresh accepted the reviewed committed baseline. - The workflow rejected changes outside the lock and report proof files. ## Risks The lockfile bot merges this PR without CI or review when every added package version is at least 3 days old on npm. Otherwise the PR waits for a maintainer, and the daily refresh tries again. The bot merges only the exact commit this workflow generated from manifests already reviewed on master. Unknown report lock baselines remain blocked. This update changes no permissions or paid enable gates. ## Model Used None — generated by pnpm and the deterministic report-lock updater. ## Checklist - [x] Thinking path and problem description included - [x] Generated lock and matching report proof included - [x] Release-age gate decides between bot merge and maintainer review Co-authored-by: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
github-actions[bot]andlockfile-bot
|
1843d27e09 |
chore(lockfile): refresh pnpm-lock.yaml (#18219)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses a dependency lock for reproducible builds. > - Dependency changes on master need matching lock entries. > - Paid eval reports also pin a reviewed offline correction. > - Reports must install before paid model work starts. > - This automated PR keeps the lock and report proof together. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Dependency manifests on master changed after the last committed lock refresh. **Expected behavior** Frozen installs must match those manifests. Eval reports must retain matching offline lock proof. **Steps to reproduce** Run a frozen install before and after this lock refresh. ## What Changed - Refresh the dependency lock from the manifests on master. - Include the matching offline report correction and hashes. ## Verification - Pinned pnpm resolution completed with lifecycle scripts disabled. - The report proof refresh accepted the reviewed committed baseline. - Required PR checks and reviews must pass before merge. ## Risks Dependency changes require review. Unknown report lock baselines remain blocked. This update changes no permissions or paid enable gates. ## Model Used None — generated by pnpm and the deterministic report-lock updater. ## Checklist - [x] Thinking path and problem description included - [x] Generated lock and matching report proof included - [ ] Required CI checks and reviews pass Co-authored-by: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
github-actions[bot]andlockfile-bot
|
4a6f6a65eb |
chore(lockfile): refresh pnpm-lock.yaml (#18185)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses a dependency lock for reproducible builds. > - Dependency changes on master need matching lock entries. > - Paid eval reports also pin a reviewed offline correction. > - Reports must install before paid model work starts. > - This automated PR keeps the lock and report proof together. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Dependency manifests on master changed after the last committed lock refresh. **Expected behavior** Frozen installs must match those manifests. Eval reports must retain matching offline lock proof. **Steps to reproduce** Run a frozen install before and after this lock refresh. ## What Changed - Refresh the dependency lock from the manifests on master. - Include the matching offline report correction and hashes. ## Verification - Pinned pnpm resolution completed with lifecycle scripts disabled. - The report proof refresh accepted the reviewed committed baseline. - Required PR checks and reviews must pass before merge. ## Risks Dependency changes require review. Unknown report lock baselines remain blocked. This update changes no permissions or paid enable gates. ## Model Used None — generated by pnpm and the deterministic report-lock updater. ## Checklist - [x] Thinking path and problem description included - [x] Generated lock and matching report proof included - [ ] Required CI checks and reviews pass Co-authored-by: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
github-actions[bot]andlockfile-bot
|
31b927e301 |
chore(lockfile): refresh pnpm-lock.yaml (#18097)
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/211/changes/paperclip/211 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses a dependency lock for reproducible builds. > - Dependency changes on master need matching lock entries. > - Paid eval reports also pin a reviewed offline correction. > - Reports must install before paid model work starts. > - This automated PR keeps the lock and report proof together. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Dependency manifests on master changed after the last committed lock refresh. **Expected behavior** Frozen installs must match those manifests. Eval reports must retain matching offline lock proof. **Steps to reproduce** Run a frozen install before and after this lock refresh. ## What Changed - Refresh the dependency lock from the manifests on master. - Include the matching offline report correction and hashes. ## Verification - Pinned pnpm resolution completed with lifecycle scripts disabled. - The report proof refresh accepted the reviewed committed baseline. - Required PR checks and reviews must pass before merge. ## Risks Dependency changes require review. Unknown report lock baselines remain blocked. This update changes no permissions or paid enable gates. ## Model Used None — generated by pnpm and the deterministic report-lock updater. ## Checklist - [x] Thinking path and problem description included - [x] Generated lock and matching report proof included - [ ] Required CI checks and reviews pass Co-authored-by: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
github-actions[bot]andlockfile-bot
|
efd65c1125 |
chore(lockfile): refresh pnpm-lock.yaml (#18059)
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/189/changes/paperclip/189 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> Auto-generated lockfile refresh after dependencies changed on master. This PR only updates pnpm-lock.yaml. Co-authored-by: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
287b04d72f |
fix(evals): keep report dependency proof with lockfile refresh (#18063)
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/192/changes/paperclip/192 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and runs paid Product E2E evaluations. > - Paid work needs a report that can install its trusted dependencies. > - The report uses a reviewed offline lock correction. > - New UI dependencies can make that correction stale while its lock hash still matches. > - The lockfile bot must refresh the correction with its lock changes. > - This PR also checks manifest consistency offline before model admission. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Current master declares new CodeMirror and YAML UI dependencies. Its committed lock omits those UI importer entries. The existing report correction accepts that lock, but a frozen install then fails with `ERR_PNPM_OUTDATED_LOCKFILE`. This can waste completed paid work before the report fails. Refs #18059. That bot PR supplies the matching lock. This PR keeps the root lock bot-owned and supplies its exact offline report correction. The correction changes 21 importer lines and leaves all package records unchanged. **Expected behavior** The existing bot includes matching report proof in its dependency PR. Paid authorization rejects stale manifests before model work. Report installation still accepts only reviewed hashes and applies no registry resolution. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a frozen pnpm 9.15.4 install on master at `7f10cc058568e3c1ac133cf24f3b4000cbdfca0e`. 2. Observe the missing UI importer entries. 3. Apply the reviewed correction in this PR. The frozen install passes. ## What Changed - Add an explicit refresh mode that derives the offline patch and hashes from a known committed lock and the bot's resolved lock. - Keep the existing unknown-lock, patch hash and output hash guards. - Include the proof files in the existing lockfile bot PR. New bot PRs use complete descriptions; existing descriptions stay intact. - Validate the frozen lock against current manifests offline before paid admission, using the existing pinned pnpm version. - Refresh the current correction and document this process. The root lockfile is not committed here. ## Verification - 24 focused report-lock and workflow-security tests pass. They cover offline replay, tampered input/patch/output rejection, real Git refresh, unknown-base refusal and unchanged proof. - A full frozen install passes after the reviewed correction, with lifecycle scripts disabled. - A fresh source archive validates offline with an empty package store. - A deliberate manifest change fails that same offline check with `ERR_PNPM_OUTDATED_LOCKFILE`. - Both workflow files parse as YAML. All 95 shell steps pass Bash syntax checks. - `git diff --check` passes. These checks make no model requests. - Full repository checks and fresh reviews must pass on the final PR head before merge. ## Risks - Dependency changes must still pass review. Refresh refuses an unknown committed baseline. - The bot now commits two additional proof files. Its write permissions and target branch stay unchanged. Existing PR descriptions are preserved. - The paid authorization job adds an offline manifest check. It runs no package lifecycle scripts. - No budget, provider credential, environment permission, schedule or paid enable gate changes. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning and code execution tools. The exact serving variant 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 - [ ] 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a8bd012635 |
fix(evals): apply reviewed lock corrections to reports and qualification images (#17937)
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/98/changes/paperclip/98 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and records their work. > - Product E2E campaigns measure real agent behavior and model spend. > - A paid hosted run completed both cases and all ten model receipts. > - Its report job could not install dependencies from the committed lock. > - The trusted checkout needs a reviewed dependency correction. > - This change applies a reviewed lock correction before the frozen report install. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #17928 **Description** The report in [run 40576181788](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40576181788) failed with `ERR_PNPM_LOCKFILE_CONFIG_MISMATCH`. Both paid cases had passed. The worker and build jobs already restored the resolved source lock, but the report did not. **Steps to reproduce** Dispatch the bounded daily campaign on the default branch with a stale committed lock configuration. Workers use the resolved lock. The report uses the stale lock and fails before report generation. **Expected behavior** The report installs frozen dependencies from a verified lock for the exact trusted source. Evidence can be reported without repeating paid work. ## What Changed - Apply a reviewed lock correction from the trusted report checkout before its frozen install. Use the same correction for the qualification image build, which also requires a compatible frozen lock. - Pin the original lock, correction and output SHA-256. The trusted authorization job rejects unknown inputs before any paid work. - Apply the same correction to trusted manual history publication. Qualification image builds apply it only when their target equals the workflow revision; other targets keep their own lock. - Update existing Claude ACP and postgres patch identities and link the declared yaml dependency. Existing package tarball integrity entries stay unchanged; the declared yaml dependency adds exactly yaml@2.9.1 with pinned integrity. - Keep runtime registry resolution and worker target locks out of the credential-bearing report. - Test valid correction, idempotence and changed-lock, changed-patch and wrong-output rejection. ## Verification - Focused workflow and lock-correction tests: 36 passed. - `actionlint .github/workflows/runner-full-stack-e2e.yml` passed. - Original worker evidence: 2/2 passed, ten final model receipts, zero unresolved model requests. - The original report was regenerated from retained evidence with zero provider calls and saved privately with replay provenance. - Broader repository checks run in CI. Prior full Product checks passed for #17928. ## Risks The correction is tied to the reviewed committed lock. Dependency input changes need a reviewed correction update. No new registry version or lifecycle script can enter the privileged report through this fix. The original failed workflow stays failed. No root lockfile is committed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository inspection and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are 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 - [ ] 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> |