Commit Graph
4801 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
DottaandPaperclip 45e34b41b7 Cover read-only runtime manifest replacement in the build contract
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-04 22:12:57 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 69365de841 Preserve read-only runtime identity across repeat builds
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-04 22:03:13 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 9085e28e67 Verify the installed Daytona plugin release identity
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-04 21:54:50 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip d3812f0326 Certify Cursor acceptance and the normal release combination
Record all twenty local and Daytona gates, seven semantic Runner passes with accounting exclusions, final public package/image hashes, and both installed-product smokes. Preserve failed attempts and v11 plan-wait compatibility.

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-04 21:45:19 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 327f6df095 Accept an isolated public plugin install in release fixtures
Match the product plugin installer dependency isolation and validate compiled public package metadata before installing it through the API.

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-04 21:32:19 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip b080895310 Use a public Daytona plugin in installed release qualification
The first installed remote smoke failed before allocation because its fixture used the development plugin and workspace loader. Resolve the compiled plugin in the actual npm consumer and keep qualified Cursor outside candidate admission checks.

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-04 21:29:19 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip b9a0180c1a Cover the vendored readiness dependency surface
Include live/index.js in the server dependency inventory now that production configuration probes import that boundary.

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-04 21:16:40 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 2684979803 Use vendored Cursor readiness probes in public installations
A clean public installation reproduced a missing development-only Runner import. Route readiness through the built vendor boundary and assert the installed Cursor probe in the public package verifier.

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-04 21:14:59 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 31785af33b Record completed Cursor qualification and update readiness probes
Document all ten local and Daytona gates with preserved failed attempts and registry publication provenance. Update the second registry mock for the normal Cursor probe.

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-04 21:06:12 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 630ed86131 Enable qualified Cursor and package normal Daytona assets
Keep explicit models and unknown accounting. Bind ordinary remote startup to the packaged Linux daemon and matching image manifest after the local and Daytona qualification matrix.

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-04 20:54:17 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip afe305b505 Report closed reasons for incomplete Cursor retirement evidence
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-04 20:27:30 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip cb5259b031 docs(cursor): state release capabilities and known limits
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-03 19:20:06 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 3b9084a33e docs(cursor): record candidate qualification and installed package proof
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-03 19:17:48 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 473206cd9d fix(cursor): verify installed runtime and delivered artifact evidence
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-03 18:00:20 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 5e6c1666c1 test(cursor): exercise the installed public product without runtime overrides
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-03 17:30:11 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip d0b90756e3 fix(cursor): retain mode identity and ship verified platform daemons
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-03 17:19:49 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 2be4dacc5e Name the Cursor file fixture deliverable explicitly
Keep the completion marker out of automatically generated artifact-preparation comments while retaining exact byte, delivery and completion assertions. Five fixture tests pass.

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-03 16:48:55 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 2cad239c8c Use remote process authority for Cursor Stop proof
Keep local PID transition tracking inside the local observer; the remote case retains its sandbox boot and start-tick lifetime proof. 134 fixture tests and fixture typecheck pass.

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-03 16:37:31 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip df1c6569f7 Preserve Cursor recovery evidence before publication
Scope denied-turn proof reads before event limits, distinguish bootstrap failures from uncertain resource admission, and retain raw cleanup authority.

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-03 16:27:21 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip c48d0fba50 fix(cursor): preserve Stop precedence and explicit denied-task recovery
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-03 16:13:11 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip c45cf9f418 fix(cursor): fence denied-turn recovery and attest deferred read input
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-03 16:03:32 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 2783390f88 fix(evals): retain uncertain Cursor allocation recovery state
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-03 15:41:48 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 5623ff9505 fix(cursor): reject provider substitution and prove denied terminal
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-03 14:26:18 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip ae24f09812 fix(cursor): preserve mainline contracts during selective integration
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-03 14:03:14 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip f71957ef76 fix(cursor): retain complete plan proofs and portable manifest digests
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-03 13:40:14 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 468c46ff1d docs(cursor): record candidate identities and qualification checkpoint
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-03 13:33:38 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip f67dcc56fd test(cursor): verify public install and provider-loss settlement
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-03 13:33:38 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 37ba674378 Fix public Cursor asset ownership and add runtime-loss qualification
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-03 13:33:37 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip e2b89b6302 Integrate pinned Cursor ACP runtime and explicit public setup
Consolidate Cursor v10 onto current controller behavior, retain admission gates, and prepare native interaction and cleanup qualification. Add the public provisioner and ordinary provider-pack assets.

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-03 13:33:15 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 2a8a99e4a5 fix(ui): reveal completed thinking caret beside label (#15048)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work.
> - The task thread shows completed agent work and its reasoning.
> - The completed work row places the disclosure caret at the far right.
> - The caret stays visible even when the reader does not inspect the
row.
> - The row needs a quiet control that stays close to the work label.
> - This pull request places the caret after that label and shows it on
hover or keyboard focus.
> - The change keeps the timestamp on the right and does not move
content on hover.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

The completed agent work row shows a disclosure caret at the far right
of the task thread. The caret stays visible when the pointer is
elsewhere.

**Expected behavior**

The caret stays near the work label. It appears on hover or keyboard
focus. The timestamp stays on the right.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Open a task with a completed agent run.
2. Look at the completed work row without hovering over it.
3. Hover over the row and then use the keyboard to focus its button.

Related: #11772 addresses a different caret and composer layout.

## What Changed

- Move the completed work caret next to the work label.
- Keep its space reserved. Show it on hover or keyboard focus.
- Add a test for caret position, visibility classes, and the open state.

## Verification

- `node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx` passes all 100 tests.
- `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` passes all token gates.
- `git diff origin/master...HEAD --check` passes.
- CI passes on the latest head, including typecheck, build, tests, and
verification. The local isolated worktree could not run typecheck
because dependency installation failed while applying the existing
`codex-acp` patch.

## Risks

- Low risk. The same button still opens the work detail. Only the caret
position and visibility change.
- On a touch device, the caret is not visible without hover. The work
row stays a button that users can tap.

> This is a focused UI fix. It does not add a planned core feature from
`ROADMAP.md`.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex coding agent. The runner does not expose the exact model
ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, shell tools, and code
execution.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with the details available in this
runner
- [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 linked public issues or 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
ticket ID
- [x] I have run focused tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have checked documentation impact; no documentation change is
needed for this visual fix
- [x] I have considered and documented the 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>
canary/v2026.1003.0-canary.9
2026-10-03 12:41:22 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 1c3abf5075 fix(ui): use available space for composer labels (#15050)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work.
> - The task composer shows the next assignee and model before a message
starts work.
> - Fixed width limits shortened both labels when the composer had
unused space.
> - People could not read the selected agent and model even when the
full text could fit.
> - This pull request makes the capsule use the available composer
width.
> - It keeps the ellipsis when Plan mode or a narrow layout causes real
space pressure.
> - The benefit is clearer run settings without damage to the compact
composer layout.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

The task composer truncated the assignee name at 6rem and the complete
assignee and model capsule at 16rem. It did this even when the composer
had more available space.

**Expected behavior**

The composer must show the complete assignee and model labels when they
fit. It must use an ellipsis only when another control or a narrow
viewport limits the available width.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Open a task composer with a long assignee name and a long model name.
2. Use a wide desktop layout.
3. Observe that the old capsule shortened both labels while unused space
remained.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Current `master` before this change.

**Deployment mode**

Local dev (`pnpm dev`).

**Installation method**

Built from source.

**Agent adapter(s) involved**

Not adapter-specific. This is a core UI bug.

**Database mode**

Not database-related.

**Access context**

Board.

**Additional context**

The Storybook cases cover a wide composer and a narrow composer with
Plan mode.

## What Changed

- Removed the fixed maximum width from the assignee and model capsule.
- Removed the fixed maximum width from the assignee label.
- Kept overflow ellipsis behavior when the parent row has insufficient
space.
- Added stable label selectors and focused component coverage.
- Added Storybook cases for complete labels and Plan-mode truncation.

## Verification

- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `vitest run
ui/src/components/task-chat/ComposerRunSettingsPicker.test.tsx`
- `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs`
- Storybook production build under Node.js 24.20.0
- Captured and inspected the two new Storybook cases.
- The complete repository typecheck and build reach the Rust Runner
step. This local environment does not have `cargo`. Hosted CI supplies
the Rust toolchain.
- The repository test suite reaches workspace-runtime tests. This local
runner does not allow their required temporary home directories. Hosted
CI supplies a writable test home.

## Risks

- Low risk. The change only removes fixed width limits from one flex
item.
- A very narrow composer can still shorten both labels. This is the
intended fallback.
- The Storybook constrained case verifies that Plan mode and Send remain
usable.

> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.

## Model Used

- OpenAI GPT-5 through the Paperclip Codex runner. The run used
reasoning, tool use, code execution, browser automation, and image
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)
- [ ] 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 12:39:18 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip eb049aebf2 feat(skills): let agents update company skills safely (#15049)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is an open source control plane for AI-agent companies.
> - Company skills give agents reusable work instructions.
> - Skill Studio can edit skill files and save version history.
> - Agents can create a skill, but they do not have a first-class update
tool.
> - An agent update needs a version check and safe retry behavior to
prevent lost edits.
> - This pull request adds `update_skill` through the existing company
skill file API.
> - The change keeps company policy, version history, and audit records
in one path.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Subsystem affected**

Cross-cutting: the server API, shared validation, and runner tool
catalog.

**Problem or motivation**

An agent can create a company skill but cannot update its `SKILL.md`
through a first-class tool. An unguarded retry can also create duplicate
versions or overwrite a newer edit.

**Proposed solution**

Add `update_skill` with a required current version ID and a retry key.
Route it through the existing skill file API. Reject stale versions and
changed-input retries. Save the version and audit event together.

**Alternatives considered**

A separate write endpoint would duplicate the Skill Studio mutation path
and policy checks. This PR reuses that path instead.

**Roadmap alignment**

This work extends Skills Manager and Skill Studio, which are listed in
`ROADMAP.md`.

**Additional context**

The tool accepts a complete `SKILL.md`, not a partial patch. Callers
must read the current version before they edit it.

## What Changed

- Add optional version and retry fields to the existing skill file
update contract.
- Add a guarded API update with a stable retry receipt and attributed
audit event.
- Add `update_skill` to native and semantic runner tool catalogs, with
mode and policy gates.
- Add unit, integration, protocol, and semantic-tool regression
coverage.
- Document agent use and extend the OpenAPI request contract.

## Verification

- Focused tests and direct server and runner TypeScript checks passed
before this PR.
- `git diff --check` passed after the rebase onto `master`.
- CI passed on the latest PR head, including the full test matrix,
typecheck, and build. Local full typecheck and build stopped because
`cargo` is not installed. The local full test run ended without a
verdict.
- No dedicated end-to-end eval scenario was added or run. The protocol
coverage and semantic-tool test cover the new action deterministically.
- Reviewers can read a skill version, call `update_skill`, repeat the
same key, then try a stale version and a changed-input key. Only the
first edit must create a new version.

## Risks

- File writes and database transactions must stay in sync when a write
fails. The integration tests cover failed writes and retry behavior, but
CI must verify them on the PR head.
- Existing Skill Studio callers do not send the new optional
coordination fields. Their request shape remains valid.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex CLI assisted with this change. The runner did not expose
the exact model ID or context window. The agent used code execution and
repository tools.

## 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; exact model ID and context window were not exposed)
- [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 tests; full suite
is pending 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 (53 pass, 4 skip on the latest
head)
- [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 12:37:55 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip b17019e14d fix(agents): reduce default instructions and qualify stock harnesses (#14948)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Its adapters supply task context and access to Paperclip skills and
tools.
> - The default hire manual and shared prompts also repeat general work
procedures.
> - Those procedures overlap with stock provider instructions and the
Paperclip skill.
> - Existing E2E fixtures supply a QA manual, so they do not qualify the
production default.
> - This pull request reduces the generic instructions and adds real
default-hire coverage.
> - The benefit is less competing guidance, with inspectable evidence
for preserved skills and task context.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs: #14920. That merged change preserves native Codex base
instructions. This PR covers the default manual, shared legacy prompts,
operational skill guidance, and the narrowly approved ACP
skill-discovery/session-environment repair for measured delivery and
credential-persistence failures.

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

New non-CEO hires without a custom bundle and legacy task/chat startup
and continuation prompts.

**Current behavior**

The shipped default manual contains 602 words. Generic task/chat prompts
and ordinary resume deltas repeat work procedures already available
through the harness and Paperclip skill.

**Proposed behavior**

The default manual contains only the eight-word company identity. Shared
startup prompts retain identity and connection guidance. Ordinary resume
deltas retain current work context without the generic execution
contract.

**Reason and benefit**

Let the stock harness guide general work. Keep Paperclip-specific
capabilities and independently test default hires, skills, ordered
comments, and chat restart.

**Breaking changes**

New default hires receive less guidance. Existing saved manuals,
explicit custom bundles, CEO templates, and specialized wake contracts
retain their behavior. The obsolete includeExecutionContract option
remains accepted for source compatibility.

## What Changed

- Reduce the default hire manual to one sentence.
- Reduce shared task/chat defaults and remove the generic
ordinary-resume contract.
- Keep connection guidance, auth, skills, custom prompts, and
specialized wake context.
- Add credential-free instruction-boundary gates and 26 explicit Product
E2E cells across eight legacy/native profiles, including two focused
Paperclip-storage cases.
- Capture public hire receipts before providers run, then grade
delivered prompts and independent task/chat outcomes.
- Add an early legacy skill API recipe for saving a task document,
checking the saved revision receipt and linking the document. Improve
stock task/heartbeat skill-selection metadata and show a clickable
Markdown UI-link example. Keep native tool completion separate.
- Advertise bounded routing descriptions and exact successfully staged
SKILL.md paths in legacy ACP Claude; keep full bodies on demand and
preserve remote path rebasing.
- Remove only the provider environment from copied persisted ACP session
records, while loading current run credentials and preserving all other
options/conversation state.
- Regenerate both capability metadata inventories and reject stale
manifests/inventories before provider admission.
- Publish the original reduction and focused skill-repair comparisons,
preserving all failures, automatic recovery, cost coverage and
limitations.

## Verification

**Behavioral qualification remains pending.** Original legacy ACP Claude
loses the issue document only in the reduced cohort beneath an unchanged
credential failure. A source-backed diagnosis finds that neither
ordinary assignment reads the staged operational skill, while the
runtime persists provider environment in session state. The new common
repairs expose skill metadata/path and omit persisted env; strict
document and credential guards stay intact. [Inspectable diagnosis and
retained
hashes](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/9f654db4541d3d002769c988f6e51fc0b08dadbd/doc/plans/2026-10-03-legacy-acp-claude-readiness.md).

Current repair head `de0965984ff3edf611ae6d0e7ca5c7d5ae3947bb`
incorporates master `569c7203aa24b95440682983ce7940ba1d4247bd` (merged
#14961/#15007). All 222 affected adapter tests, adapter-utils/E2E
typechecks, and final 96 variant/grader/retry calibrations pass. The
frozen historical comparator is
`c25697f4260b6f3adfea143c3ae9932e2f42986d`: 8,280 of 8,291 paths
identical, exactly two production instruction paths plus nine declared
unit expectations differ. The operational skill/discovery/environment
repairs, selected model/profile/task/core grader/auth/permissions/retry
policy are identical. Both actual launcher prepare→verify admissions
pass with zero providers. [Immutable manifest and exact
receipts](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/9f654db4541d3d002769c988f6e51fc0b08dadbd/doc/plans/2026-10-03-legacy-acp-claude-evidence/manifest.json).

One original legacy ACP Claude cell per variant is authorized, with
enforced single campaign attempts, 12-minute deadlines and company/agent
1,000-cent hard stops; every product recovery run/cost is counted.
Actual live outcomes are pending. Current normal CI has one failed
server shard and failed aggregate verify under diagnosis; other normal
gates including typecheck/build/Rust/all eight browser shards pass.
Fresh review completed successfully; the valid historical startup/resume
masking finding was fixed with per-invocation task/chat checks and
strict complete-snapshot capture, calibrated and resolved. Prior heads,
failures and campaigns below remain historical evidence, not checks on
this repair head.

- Prior head `36aa4d81c49a1a8f6f04b1a068fae19aa901955f` is replayed on
merged hiring master `862a5758ba0e88a33232c1f1fa645e85c38a3113`. All 52
current-head checks pass with two intentional Storybook skips, including
repository typecheck/test/build and the browser shard. Fresh Greptile is
5/5 with zero unresolved review threads. Exact-head stock prerequisites
pass 599 assertions (598 TypeScript + 1 Rust), all six gates and
retained receipt verification, zero providers/source errors. Fingerprint
`a7f5a22d860a88fe20cce213c6d5e0004788f32c8363930729aea4fd740ad16d`.
Combined catalog/hiring calibrations pass 67 assertions, E2E typecheck
and 26-cell stock discovery pass. Canonical contract/inventory checks
and the later issue-derived reference calibration are retained; that
reference-only follow-up is not live-qualified by earlier frozen runs.
- Prior full repository typecheck/build passed. The complete local
Vitest run executed 14,956 tests: 14,870 passed, 83 skipped, three
timing failures. All three affected files passed unchanged narrow
reruns; original failures remain retained. Current-head CI now passes
the full general checks; the original local failures remain retained.
- The original 24-pair default-manual/shared-prompt comparison has two
new overall classic Claude/OpenCode document-delivery failures plus an
additional legacy ACP Claude document loss beneath an unchanged
credential-guard failure (not closed by later runs), two newly passing
OpenCode ordered cases, seven unchanged failures and 13 unchanged
passes. Equal 15/24 totals do not establish behavioral equivalence.
[Complete original
report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/875f4c397d9e8c3f12f39dedd59abaf1eaf5236e/doc/plans/2026-10-02-stock-harness-live-comparison.md).
- The skill-only repair holds the eight-word manual/shared prompts and
merged #14920 fixed. All four matched profile configurations and 203
fixture/behavior files match. Candidate
`abd0b628ca642c09a54a4edc56a5227402f6686e` varies only the two skill
sources against baseline `bc83fe030234439ac51279502a28803958963e2e`.
[Candidate
workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37060885547)
and [baseline
workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37060888047)
each pass 571 exact-source prerequisites before providers; all eight
cells clean up successfully. Failed campaigns publish successfully and
remain failed.
- Repair pairs: Claude original Fail → Pass; Claude explicit Pass →
Pass; both OpenCode cases Fail → Fail. Explicit OpenCode's handoff
worsens beneath the unchanged failing UI-link grade: baseline gives a
clickable API URL, candidate gives a code-formatted path without an
anchor. The request's usable-link wording is narrower in the UI-only
oracle. [Complete repair report and safe
projection](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/875f4c397d9e8c3f12f39dedd59abaf1eaf5236e/doc/plans/2026-10-02-legacy-document-skill-repair.md).
- The subsequent narrow stock metadata/link correction has two matched
Pass → Pass cases, zero new machine failures/passes and no pending
pairs. Both original-case handoff links remain deficient: candidate uses
a wrong PAP prefix, baseline supplies a bare prefix-less slug path; the
preserved original oracle only requires a durable document. Both
explicit clickable UI-link cases pass revision/content/link grading. All
four exact-source 587-check gates, single assignment runs and cleanup
pass. This does not establish fix causality because baseline also
succeeds. [Candidate
workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37069547401)
freezes `fe9dc1e3c518825242ed889ab9c8352986f8c2ed`; [matched
baseline](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37069552374)
freezes `0d7ecfa96d72fba79b7f0a25052b42c0686c0488`. This is a skill-only
comparison with reduced manuals/shared prompts held constant, not a
repeat of the historical-manual comparison. Only original and clarified
explicit classic OpenCode cases are selected, two per variant/four
expected turns. 8,242 other tracked files and both profile hashes match;
protected workflows admit each exact source before credentials.
[Complete qualification
report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/74d0d3d945f4c52d0814b5a845ab5bd09f33cd6b/doc/plans/2026-10-02-opencode-skill-routing-link-qualification.md).
Candidate original loads Paperclip/reference before saving publicly;
baseline original loads it after writing locally, then saves publicly
within the same assignment. Reported cost totals are $0.0107824490
candidate / $0.0107909015 baseline, with unmetered runtime. The later
reference-only issue-derived link correction is provider-free calibrated
and **not live-qualified** by these frozen runs; no further paid runs.
- Retained tool calls show the repaired original OpenCode assignment
loads only its assigned output skill before writing locally. Operational
Paperclip is first loaded during automatic disposition recovery; its
early recipe is visible then, but it never saves the missing document.
Explicit candidate loads Paperclip and reads the new reference before
saving successfully. All nine actual runs are counted. Reported LLM
totals are $0.3802537209 baseline and $0.4918990161 candidate; local
runtime is unmetered.
- Initial setup, packaging, cancelled/missing-cell recovery, callback
test and relative-output attempts remain retained. No completed provider
failure was rerun. Frozen measurement branches are unchanged by later
canonical metadata maintenance.
- Run `pnpm test:e2e:runner:stock-harness`, `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit`,
and `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck`. Select `stock-harness` explicitly
for paid execution; it is excluded from `--all`.

Prior-head integration: `36aa4d81c49a1a8f6f04b1a068fae19aa901955f`
replays this PR on merged hiring #14985
(`862a5758ba0e88a33232c1f1fa645e85c38a3113`), preserving the four
explicit custom-CEO-bundle checks, minimal generic manual boundary, and
both suites. The combined fixture catalog and hiring calibrations pass
67 assertions; exact-head stock prerequisites pass 599 assertions (598
TypeScript + 1 Rust), all six gates and retained-receipt verification,
zero providers/source errors, fingerprint
`a7f5a22d860a88fe20cce213c6d5e0004788f32c8363930729aea4fd740ad16d`. E2E
typecheck and 26-cell stock discovery pass. Fresh current-head CI passes
all 52 checks with two intentional skips, and fresh Greptile is 5/5 with
zero unresolved review threads.

The prior source-plan browser failure is retained: a deterministic
process fixture replayed its last `fixture:plan` command on
`chat_task_completed`, writing revision 2 with identical body after the
approval handoff. This was not paid provider execution. Rebased
current-head CI passes the same assertion without an old-head retry or a
change to that browser fixture.

The merged hiring change was measured separately on immutable matched
unions, with this reduced/shared/operational context and native
completion guidance held constant. [Complete original two-profile
report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/f0512647656be78e48abd8c22a3078db8bf6bcd2/doc/plans/2026-10-02-hiring-template-live-comparison.md):
[candidate](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37075466208)
/ [historical
baseline](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37075469463),
705 provider-free prerequisites each. Both pairs are unchanged Fail →
Fail on the exact-five count, with six core delivery checks passing all
four cells; 28 actual successful runs include eight automatic completion
wakes, zero retries, four successful cleanups. Source-read coverage is
uncomparable, actual model charges unknown. Separately versioned
provider-free accounting remains analytical work; original verdicts are
preserved. This does not rerun or qualify the completed default-manual
or native campaigns.

## Risks

- Legacy ACP Claude's additional delivery loss is not closed by any
later matched run and blocks the no-extra-failing-behavior merge
criterion. Legacy document delivery may have relied on the prior
manual/shared prompts. The early skill repair improves Claude in one
trial; the later OpenCode pairs pass in both variants and cannot
establish causality or robust recovery. Both original-case links remain
deficient beneath the storage-only grade. The later issue-derived
reference correction has only provider-free validation. Native
finish/block descriptions must not be supplied to legacy agents.
- The comparison holds merged native Codex fix #14920 constant; it
cannot measure that fix's before/after task performance.
- These bounded skill/context/chat workflows do not measure general
coding quality. Unrepresented providers remain unqualified.
- Saved manuals and old Codex sessions are not automatically migrated.
Codex through ACP still has a separate base-instruction follow-up.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family as identified by this session. The exact
deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed. The assistant
used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and delegated PR/eval
work.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` /
`Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the
relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (relevant suites and all
three unchanged narrow reruns pass; complete-run timing failures
retained in Verification)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the new repair head
(prior-head checks retained above)
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
on the new repair head
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
canary/v2026.1003.0-canary.8
2026-10-03 12:32:42 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 569c7203aa fix(ui): use latest issue runtime callbacks (#14863)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their work.
> - The issue page uses an external-store adapter for comments.
> - The adapter must keep one identity during an unrelated render.
> - The adapter must also call the newest send and cancel functions.
> - Passive effects update those functions too late for a synchronous
runtime call.
> - This pull request updates the function refs during render and adds a
regression test.
> - The benefit is a stable comment thread with no stale comment action.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #3678

**What happened?**

The issue comment runtime can call the prior send function after a
render. The callback refs do not update until passive effects run.

**Expected behavior**

The stable runtime adapter must call the newest function as soon as the
render supplies it.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Render the issue runtime with one send function.
2. Render it again with a new send function and the same thread data.
3. Call the stable adapter before passive effects run.
4. Observe that the prior send function runs.

**Paperclip version or commit**

`6395cae072`

**Deployment mode**

Local development from source.

**Agent adapter(s) involved**

This is a core UI bug. It is not adapter-specific.

## What Changed

- Update the latest send and cancel refs during render.
- Keep the external-store adapter stable across callback-only renders.
- Add a test for a runtime callback before passive effects run.

## Verification

- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/hooks/usePaperclipIssueRuntime.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm build`

## Risks

- Low risk. The change only updates two refs earlier in the same render.
- The adapter identity and its data dependencies do not change.

> This bug fix does not add or overlap with a roadmap feature.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The exact deployed model ID and context
window are not exposed. Reasoning, tool use, and local code execution
were enabled.

## 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>
canary/v2026.1003.0-canary.7
2026-10-03 06:52:49 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 78e0034498 fix(evals): account for hiring completion notifications (#15007)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Product E2E evals check real hiring and delegated task completion.
> - The hiring fixture requires three requested CEO turns and two coder
executions.
> - The server can also wake the CEO when each delegated task completes.
> - Two exact-five-run guards rejected these valid completion turns in
all four retained cells.
> - This pull request validates bounded completion turns in both guards.
> - The benefit is accurate workflow grading while all actual runs and
coverage failures remain visible.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs: #14985, #14948, #14961.

**What happened?**

The original hiring comparison reports Codex Fail → Fail and Claude Fail
→ Fail. Each cell has seven successful runs. The five requested work
turns are accompanied by two server task-completion notifications. All
six other delivery checks pass.

**Expected behavior**

Require exactly three distinct user-requested CEO turns and one coder
execution for each of two known tasks. Admit at most two strictly
attributed server completion turns, including one turn that batches both
tasks. Reject unknown, duplicate, failed, retried or extra-work runs.

**Steps to reproduce**

Inspect the retained four-cell report linked below. Each original result
fails `five-successful-turns`. The same exact count was also enforced by
the final chat-flow guard.

## What Changed

- Add one typed lifecycle helper shared by the hiring scorer and the
hiring-only final chat guard.
- Validate public run ledgers, company/user/account identity, request
attribution, task origins, completion deliveries, timing and replies.
- Keep exactly five required work turns; declare seven maximum total
turns for cost and timeout planning.
- Count all actual runs, including notification runs and unexpected
resets. Keep other chat count guards unchanged.
- Version the hiring grader as v3 (turn accounting v2) and include the
helper and chat guard in its definition digest.
- Keep source-read, exact coder-body and all six other delivery checks
unchanged.
- Add 144 focused helper/scorer/settlement calibrations and separately
versioned exact retained-input replay reports.
- Retry complete bracketed observations, await both owed callbacks and
attributed replies, and refresh the final guard consistently.
- Reject unrelated completion writes and failed mutation attempts using
exact canonical/native action IDs. Missing identity mapping is
uncomparable action coverage.

## Verification

- All 977 credential-free E2E support tests pass across 64 files,
including 144 focused lifecycle/action/scorer/settlement calibrations.
- E2E typecheck, ordinary plugin SDK and Runner TypeScript dependency
builds, capability contract/inventory checks and the existing two-cell
hiring discovery pass.
- [Executable replay
report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/fed1729018cc100f5f4bbfb692777e49009c423b/doc/plans/2026-10-02-hiring-executable-accounting-replay.md)
pins current code revision `e4077ade1818d98b9862ae79ee1d49a007dcf9c1`,
v3 definition digest, exact source/input hashes and each original/new
check.
- The stricter replay verifies both Codex variants through both
executable guards. ACPX Claude action attribution remains
unresolved/uncomparable because provider execution IDs cannot be exactly
joined to native request IDs; guards fail closed. No notification writes
are observed. All six other outcomes and every original source/template
coverage check stay unchanged. Original files and Fail → Fail machine
verdicts remain preserved; zero providers are called.
- Full attempts remain uncomparable in both profiles. Historical Claude
also keeps its six-backtick exact-template mismatch. This grading repair
does not prove model-performance equivalence.
- The limited sidecar-v1 and initial executable-v2 passes checked
notification-created tasks but could miss unrelated document writes.
Those assessments remain preserved and do not prove harmless
notifications. The stricter v3 replay is separate.
- [Original measurement and separate
sidecar](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/8eb517ca1497687237163bdef4dfc4d3332ea916/doc/plans/2026-10-02-hiring-template-live-comparison.md)
retain 28 actual runs, eight automatic notifications, four successful
cleanups and unknown actual model charges. No models are rerun.
- The branch is replayed on master `59c07ede7`. Intervening master
changes are UI-only; eval source bytes and replay verdicts match. The
four-cell provider-free replay was repeated against the reachable code
revision.
- Initial-head normal CI retained browser failures in agent-run denial
feedback and touch-picker scroll position. Those browser paths and
imports were unchanged, but their cause was not established. The
necessary review-fix head passes both browser checks; no blind rerun was
requested.
- Local full repository typecheck/test/build were not repeated.
Exact-head normal CI passes the required repository gates, including
typecheck, tests, build and browser shards. Fresh Greptile review
completed on `fed1729018cc100f5f4bbfb692777e49009c423b` with 5/5 and
zero unresolved threads. An independent rerun of the 144 focused
helper/scorer/settlement tests passes on the unchanged head.


**Merge readiness:** This PR repairs the evaluator. Its positive and
negative calibrations pass, both guards reject missing action
attribution, current-head CI and review pass, and there are no merge
conflicts. The retained ACPX cells remain uncomparable because their
action IDs cannot be joined. That coverage limit remains a separate
follow-up; it does not require relaxing this grader or changing the old
results. No model calls, production instructions, carrier changes, or
historical regrades are part of this readiness update.

## Risks

- Missing or inconsistent public lifecycle evidence fails the bounded
helper. The focused calibrations reject plausible false positives and
malformed observations. Unmatched action IDs fail closed and are
reported as uncomparable rather than a model task regression.
- Source-read evidence remains incomplete. This PR does not change
provider event carriers or relax the coverage oracle.
- The versioned count check differs from original v1 results. Reports
retain both versions and exact input hashes.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family as identified by this session. The exact
deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed. The assistant
used reasoning, repository tools, code execution and delegated
calibration work.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` /
`Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the
relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [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 normal CI gates are green (exact head
`fed1729018cc100f5f4bbfb692777e49009c423b`; fresh review tracked
separately below)
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(completed exact-head review; zero unresolved threads)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-03 06:42:51 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip dd868ed125 fix(runner): share native completion tool guidance (#14961)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work.
> - Native Runner agents report completion through finish and block
tools.
> - The providers receive different descriptions for those tools.
> - Completion guidance belongs with the tools that enforce the result.
> - This pull request shares the descriptions and refreshes retained
catalogs.
> - A separate native suite checks completion and blocking on production
defaults.
> - Legacy agents retain their separate skill and API paths.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs: #14920, #14948, #14985.

**Current behavior**

Native Codex and MCP bridges describe finish and block differently.
Retained provider sessions can keep old descriptions.

**Proposed behavior**

Native providers receive the same finish and block descriptions. The
descriptions cover report selection, validation feedback, returned
outcomes, approval gates and final-answer timing. Retained native
sessions refresh from v13 to v14.

**Reason and benefit**

Put the completion procedure next to its native tool. Preserve stock
base instructions, schemas, permissions and terminal semantics. This PR
now stands alone on master. It contains no reduced manual, shared prompt
or operational-skill changes from #14948.

## What Changed

- Add canonical native finish and block descriptions. Use them in direct
Codex and both native MCP bridges.
- Advance the native tool contract to v14. Cover old-v13 refresh without
replacing task identity or prior history.
- Check authenticated tool catalogs, provider start/resume frames and
serialized daemon catalogs.
- Add an independent, explicit-only native completion suite. Preserve
the original assigned-skill durable-document journey. Pair it with a
concrete whole-task blocker across Codex, ACPX Claude and OpenCode.
- Verify the actual public production default bundle and budgets before
execution. Require independent durable disposition, native
result/terminal receipts and observable provider-final ordering.
- Correct the blocker browser oracle to accept the requested
explanation. Keep exact owner/action/scope checks. Calibrate positive,
missing and contradictory replies.
- Preserve only actual `tool_call` terminal names (`paperclip_finish` /
`paperclip_block`) in the native compatibility run-log projection.
Require the same named call ID through its finishing result; retain all
other redaction boundaries.
- Admit verified hosted shallow checkout/build hydration and bind the
selected runnerd to exact source/archive/binary provenance. Hosted cells
truthfully reuse the existing trusted build; local admission executes
Rust calibration. Forward only public source/run identifiers through
both launcher preflight subprocess paths.
- Enforce single attempts in the launcher for opted-in fixtures. Keep
ordinary retry policy unchanged. Run exact-source, credential-free
admission before credential loading.

## Verification

- Frozen candidate: `d6e59e4712a3158ab4cd7d58deff1389b4578c21`, based on
master `59c07ede72dc08b8aba149a01cc11e0b7a204621`; historical
descriptions: `e74ed61a69fbdd8b3a8f15dd6456bc3140246e33`. Exactly the
five original native production files and six unit tests differ. Both
carry identical corrected fixtures, strict named finishing-call grader,
closed compatibility carrier and admission. Defaults,
profiles/models/auth/permissions and manifest bytes match.
- Actual launcher `prepareNativeCompletionPreflight` →
`verifyNativeCompletionPreflight` admission passes on both exact refs
with zero providers: candidate 132 / historical 127 selected TypeScript
assertions, 128 Node calibrations and one Rust normalization calibration
each; E2E typecheck, manifest checks, selected binary provenance and
six-cell discovery pass. Each has 257 explicitly skipped unrelated
assertions, not coverage. The credential-free environment calibration
exercises both real prepare/verify subprocess options with public hosted
identifiers and rejects credential/ambient overrides. Complete actual
launcher prepare→verify also passes on both frozen refs with explicitly
synthetic hosted metadata/verified archives, separately labeled as
calibration rather than a trusted GitHub run. Exact framed provenance
parsing and mock source identity are calibrated without relaxing the
real verifier.
- [Complete matched qualification
report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/532066620b88e8731a5211fbe1cbc48ce8c7dd1a/doc/plans/2026-10-02-native-completion-master-qualification.md),
[immutable
manifest](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/532066620b88e8731a5211fbe1cbc48ce8c7dd1a/doc/plans/2026-10-02-native-completion-calibrated-manifest.json)
and [closed retained
audit/hashes](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/532066620b88e8731a5211fbe1cbc48ce8c7dd1a/doc/plans/2026-10-02-native-completion-calibrated-results/comparison.json)
are inspectable. All six candidate cells pass; historical descriptions
pass five. Paired outcomes: **zero new failures, one new pass (Codex
blocker), five unchanged passes, zero pending pairs**. [Candidate
campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37098728980)
and [historical
campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37098815696)
each execute six original attempt-1 native runs, with no campaign retry
and successful cleanup. Their trusted workflow revision is
`215586d127e97c9301d86e769a39a15c13298ca2`, separate from measured
source. [Candidate public
HTML](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-37098728980-1/index.html)
and [historical public
HTML](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-37098815696-1/index.html)
retain declared screenshots.
- Independent candidate evidence agrees with all original grades: 51
strict native checks, 12 served-default/budget checks and 21 original
skill/document checks pass. The historical Codex blocker saves the
correct whole-task blocker but omits the required marker from its actual
provider final and identical saved reply. This is not semantic-summary
fallback. Its original browser/matcher failure stays retained; the
additional native snapshot/grade and workspace before/after digest were
never written and are not fabricated by the separate API/PRP audit.
Historical Codex completion has one failed finish followed by success
within the same native run; the public receipt records no failure
reason. All twelve runs and their usage remain counted. Reported
model-cost subtotals are $0.00421482 historical/$0.00437391 candidate;
Codex/Claude zero entries have unknown billing type, actual invoices are
unverified and hosted execution cost is unmetered. One matched trial
supports no extra failure within these six cases, not broad statistical
or coding-quality equivalence.
- Initial hosted `e18c2cf9` / `459455ac` and subsequent `0a9c5a7` /
`00a761b` cohorts each stopped before providers in all twelve cells. The
latter failed a mocked-receipt unit test under ambient hosted metadata;
all source/build proofs passed. [All twelve later setup
receipts](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/402ee94c52273ad58de355ae9a7d562dd22f8101/doc/plans/2026-10-02-native-completion-qualified-hosted-setup.json)
are retained. [Exact failed setup
receipts](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/27653eb1a8f8ce839776d760f4563f672e5a706c/doc/plans/2026-10-02-native-completion-master-hosted-setup.json)
and the original manifest remain intact. Local sandbox-denied loopback
and stale anchor-expectation attempts are retained separately; unchanged
appropriate assertions were corrected/admitted before paid dispatch. Old
anonymous OpenCode streams are not assigned inferred tool names or
retroactively passed.
- Full provider-free E2E support previously passed 927 tests in 67
files. Exact-head d6 normal CI run `37098409915`, attempt 1 passes full
repository typecheck/build/tests, Runner Rust/static checks, all browser
shards/aggregate and canary: 52 check-runs pass, four intentional skips,
Snyk passes. Fresh Greptile check `111132956342` is 5/5 with zero
unresolved threads. Source-specific deterministic tests do not
substitute for the bounded live comparison.
- Earlier native source `9138f570c341c251a5727c32d6615ce238bc8e03` is
archived. Its [complete reduced-manual-context
report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/9138f570c341c251a5727c32d6615ce238bc8e03/doc/plans/2026-10-02-native-completion-live-comparison.md)
remains intact, including original failures, grader limits and
provider-free replay. It is not current-master-context qualification.

## Risks

Changed tool text can change model behavior. The completed six-pair
qualification shows no extra failing outcomes in this bounded trial;
other tasks and repeated-run variance remain unmeasured. Observable
final ordering does not prove provider feedback consumption. Public
evidence can fail closed if a provider does not expose the required
result sequence. This slice does not remove native fixed prompts or
measure general coding quality. No database, schema, permission or
legacy completion changes occur.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with code inspection, execution and tool
use. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed in
this session. They are unavailable rather than inferred from the model
menu.

## 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>
canary/v2026.1003.0-canary.6
2026-10-03 06:20:38 -05:00
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>
nightly/v2026.1003.0-nightly.0 canary/v2026.1003.0-canary.5
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>
canary/v2026.1003.0-canary.4
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>
canary/v2026.1003.0-canary.3
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>
canary/v2026.1003.0-canary.2
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>
canary/v2026.1003.0-canary.1
2026-10-02 22:07:14 -05:00
59c07ede72 fix(ui): let a selected saved subscription be used without a tile click (#14996)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - A user creates an agent in the New Agent flow and connects a model
provider in the model step.
> - When a saved subscription exists, the step shows it as the selected
default and labels the primary button "Use saved subscription".
> - The button stays disabled until the user clicks the provider tile,
which adds no auth step on this path.
> - This extra click is a papercut: the visible choice looks ready but
does not work.
> - This pull request lets a selected saved subscription enable the
button without the tile click.
> - The benefit is one less confusing step, with no change to new
sign-ins or API keys.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

No public issue exists. The description follows the bug template.

**What happened**
In New Agent > Connect model, choose a provider that has a saved
subscription (for example OpenAI with a saved default). The saved
subscription shows as selected and the primary button reads "Use saved
subscription". The button stays disabled until you click the provider
tile.

**Expected behavior**
The button is enabled when a saved subscription is selected. A click on
it reuses that subscription.

**Steps to reproduce**
1. Have a saved OpenAI subscription.
2. Open New Agent and go to the model connection step for a Codex agent.
3. Do not click the OpenAI Subscription tile.
4. See that "Use saved subscription" is disabled.

**Paperclip version or commit**
master at `4abff286c`.

## What Changed

- `AgentProviderConnection.tsx`: the `!opened` gate on the footer
primary button no longer applies when `method === "subscription"` and a
saved subscription is selected. All other disabled conditions stay
(pending auth, loading saved keys, login readiness, API key input).
- `connect()` never reads `opened`, so no auth step is skipped. New
sign-ins and API keys still require the user to open the provider tile.
- `AgentProviderConnection.test.tsx`: a regression test that renders the
initial state (tile not opened, saved subscription selected) and expects
the button to be enabled and to connect with the saved subscription. A
guard test checks that a new sign-in still requires opening the tile.

## Verification

- `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/new-agent
src/components/ai-connections --no-file-parallelism`: 6 files, 64/64
tests pass.
- The new regression test fails on master and passes with this change.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`: 0 errors.
- `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs`: all gates clean.
- Component QA in Storybook (real component, provider verification
simulated): before, the button is disabled and skipped by Tab until the
tile click. After, a direct click and Tab+Enter both connect, with
exactly one verification callback. Selecting a new subscription still
requires opening the tile.
- Full-app before/after QA with a disposable empty backend and a
simulated provider response: same result.
- Not tested: a live OpenAI sign-in. Repo-wide `pnpm -r typecheck`,
`pnpm test:run` and `pnpm build` are left to CI.

Manual check: open New Agent with a saved subscription, go to the model
step, and click "Use saved subscription" without clicking the tile.

## Risks

- Low risk. The change is one condition in one component.
- If a future change makes `connect()` depend on the tile being opened
for saved subscriptions, this path would skip that work. The comment at
the condition records why the gate is skipped.
- Open PR #14698 edits nearby lines in the same component. A small merge
conflict is possible.

## Model Used

- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with
tool use (shell, file edit, browser automation). Extended reasoning on.

## 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

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-authored-by: scotttong <squadbot000@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-02 17:19:45 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip 1815474597 fix: report pending execution phase at Stop timeout (#14990)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The server owns each adapter execution and waits for it to settle
after Stop.
> - A Stop timeout reports that termination remains unverified.
> - Existing phase timings arrive only after their work completes, so a
stalled await has no timing.
> - This pull request samples the pending phase when the Stop timer
expires.
> - Operators can identify the pending operation without treating
diagnostics as stop proof.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

The opt-in Sentry context for an unconfirmed adapter Stop timeout.

**Current behavior**

The timeout includes execution identity but no pending phase. A session
close, instruction collection, workspace restore, or diagnostic write
can remain pending without producing its completion timing.

**Proposed behavior**

Add a closed-list phase and elapsed milliseconds from the exact live
execution control. Sample them when the timeout fires. Report `unknown`
and a null age when the control or attribution is unavailable.

**Reason and benefit**

The next timeout can identify which operation is still pending. It does
not require task text, paths, provider output, or additional database
writes.

**Breaking changes**

No API or execution behavior change. The existing opt-in error context
gains two fields. Related public work: #14639 added Stop identity
diagnostics; #14866 and #14945 cover instruction cleanup and teardown
outcomes. This change adds pending attribution to those paths. The
native Stop work in #14802 remains separate.

## What Changed

- Add a bounded tracker per execution control. Token scopes support
nested and overlapping awaits. A late release cannot clear a newer
scope.
- Track adapter execution, ACP cancellation and settlement, diagnostic
writes, and host cleanup. Keep a coarse host scope until the executor
finishes.
- Sample only the matching current control and settlement promise at
timeout. Freeze the sanitized result. Use a monotonic clock and cap
elapsed time at one day.
- Test stalled operations, repeated Stop calls, stale and wrong-run
controls, callback failures, scope bounds, and the real Sentry SDK
context.

## Verification

- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm build` passed.
- Six focused suites passed: 79 tests. They cover pending scopes, Stop
control ownership, real ACP settlement stalls, and Sentry context
isolation.
- The real Sentry SDK contract ran with the audited optional peer
`@sentry/node@10.71.0` installed outside the workspace. Valid phase and
elapsed values were exported; arbitrary labels and nonfinite elapsed
values were rejected.
- An independent agent reviewed the production diff and ran the focused
tests without blockers.
- `git diff --check` and a redacted Gitleaks scan passed. The local full
`pnpm test:run` was stopped during its large serial server batch to
avoid duplicating the sharded CI suite. No complete local broad-suite
pass is claimed.
- All CI gates passed on `c223237b58aa8d479d1c66d7d399de30270bac4f`: 54
successful checks and two expected Storybook skips. This includes the
full sharded test suite, typecheck, build, real Sentry SDK isolation,
browser tests, canary dry run, and the security scan after the PR became
ready for review.
- Greptile scored the same commit 5/5 with no actionable findings or
unresolved review threads.

## Risks

This is diagnostic instrumentation. Cancellation, deadlines, teardown
order, termination proof, and file recovery proof remain unchanged.
Unsupported or uninstrumented work uses a coarse phase. Tracker overflow
fails closed to `unknown`. The tracker emits no new run-log or Telemetry
event. The existing Sentry opt-in gate remains in place.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The agent used code inspection, local command
execution, automated tests, and an independent agent review. The runtime
did not expose a more specific model 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>
canary/v2026.1003.0-canary.0
2026-10-02 16:55:38 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip 4abff286c2 fix: retain resolved ACP execution timeout metadata (#14986)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages agent work through adapters and heartbeat runs.
> - ACP adapters resolve a timeout for the selected execution target.
> - An untouched sandbox timeout uses a four-hour default.
> - Heartbeat finalization rebuilt the metadata from the stored zero.
> - This made a timed-out sandbox run report an effective timeout of
zero.
> - This change retains the adapter's resolved policy for accurate run
diagnostics.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

ACP sandbox runs with `timeoutSec: 0` use the four-hour default. Their
terminal metadata reports `effectiveTimeoutSec: 0` and `timeoutSource:
config` because heartbeat finalization only reads the stored agent
configuration.

**Expected behavior**

The result must report the policy the adapter used: `14400` and
`sandbox_default`. Explicit limits, fractional limits, explicit
unlimited overrides, and local defaults must keep their resolved values.

**Steps to reproduce**

Run an ACP adapter on a sandbox target with `timeoutSec: 0`. Compare the
start log's four-hour policy with the terminal result's effective
timeout. The new tests exercise the adapter result and the heartbeat
metadata merge without waiting four hours.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Reproduced from `6eaf218924f0a89faf1c02eb0d6877a6c5c8a2cb`.

**Deployment mode**

Self-hosted server with an ACP sandbox execution target.

Searched open timeout and metadata issues and PRs. Related #14804
exposes timeout configuration in forms; #14496 proposes a default
policy; #14833 addresses CLI session retention. This PR changes only ACP
result metadata.

## What Changed

- Retain the resolved timeout in the ACP result after settlement.
- Use validated adapter resolution when merging terminal timeout
metadata. Preserve config fallbacks for older adapters and the HTTP
millisecond policy.
- Test sandbox defaults, explicit and fractional limits, explicit
unlimited overrides, local defaults, malformed metadata, and unchanged
cancellation fields.
- Document the result fields and their meaning.

## Verification

- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm build` passed.
- Stop metadata tests: 23 passed.
- Reporter and diagnostic suites: 84 passed; two real-Sentry-SDK tests
skipped because the optional SDK is not installed.
- ACP engine suite: all 206 tests passed with a deterministic local
`gemini --version` shim. Ambient host CLI probes made the existing
Gemini session-resume fixture intermittent (one assertion failure in
each of two broad runs); an isolated 15-case rerun and the clean-base
206-test suite also passed. No assertion or timeout was changed.
- `pnpm test:run` is in progress. This PR does not claim a complete
local suite pass.
- Independent review found no blocking issues. The tests cover real
adapter emission and the real metadata merge separately.

## Risks

Low runtime risk: this changes result diagnostics. It does not change
timeout values, cancellation acknowledgement, cleanup, checkpoint
safety, retries, or provider operations. It does not fix the cause of a
quiet or long-running tool. Older stored results are not rewritten. The
new source values apply only when an adapter returns a valid resolution.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and
test execution. The deployment-specific 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
- [ ] 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
- [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 16:09:36 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip 862a5758ba fix(agents): reduce hiring templates to role descriptions (#14985)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work.
> - New agents receive role instructions from onboarding, the hiring skill, or a team package.
> - These sources repeat harness procedures and impose generic work policies.
> - They can crowd out the task and the harness instructions.
> - This pull request reduces those sources to short role descriptions.
> - It preserves configuration, skills, authentication, reporting lines, and approval controls.
> - The benefit is less repeated instruction text with explicit coverage for the default hiring path.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #3307. The CEO template can impose a fixed delegation route instead of letting the agent choose how to fulfill the request. This change removes that route. It does not implement autonomous goal selection.

Related work: #14920 preserves stock Codex base instructions. #14948 reduces the generic manual and shared runtime prompts. #14961 improves native completion-tool descriptions. This PR is separate from those changes.

## What Changed

- Select only the short CEO `AGENTS.md` for new default CEO bundles. Keep the three former companion files as compatibility assets.
- Reduce the first-agent chief-of-staff prompt and coder, QA, UX, and security role examples.
- Reduce seven bundled team role bodies. Preserve their role, reporting, and skill metadata. Regenerate the catalog.
- Make hiring examples optional. Replace the long generic role manual with short role drafting guidance. Preserve explicit requester instructions.
- Add configuration and import coverage for native and legacy managed bundles, custom instructions, first-agent rendering, and catalog contents.
- Add an explicit-only hiring eval that starts from the production CEO default and checks one coder hire, independently computed JSON output, saved instructions, and worker reuse.
- Include the full prompt comparison and a separate three-request drafting simulation. Neither is a live provider comparison.

Prompt differences: [before and after](doc/plans/2026-10-02-hiring-template-prompt-diff.md). The CEO default falls from 1,897 to 20 words. The coder example falls from 652 to 18 words. Word counts describe instruction size, not outcome quality or billing.

## Verification

- PASS: 99 focused server tests and eight shipped-catalog tests.
- PASS: catalog generation and validation for four shipped teams.
- PASS: hiring skill validation.
- PASS: `pnpm -r typecheck`.
- PASS: `pnpm build`.
- INCOMPLETE: the full local `pnpm test:run` was stopped before rebase. Its original log is retained. This is not a completed full-suite pass. The full current-head GitHub CI workflow passed: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37073372419.
- PASS: `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` and `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit` (63 files / 843 tests).
- PASS: discovery for the two new hiring cells, 50 existing everyday cells, and the full 438-cell catalog.
- PASS after rebase: 99 server tests, 11 catalog tests, 62 selected E2E support tests, and the E2E typecheck.
- PASS: all current-head PR checks at `57dcee147ed0b2d2e3cc657cd9e50fb16bf9ec25`: 51 successful check runs, two intentional Storybook skips, and successful Snyk status. Fresh Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads.
- PENDING follow-up: matched live hiring runs on frozen integration refs. No live outcome-quality or non-regression result is claimed from the configuration checks or this merge.

The new suite has two local native cells: Codex and ACPX Claude. It expects five provider turns per cell. It compares source-derived bundles, so the historical long templates remain admissible. Missing successful source-read receipts make a pair uncomparable. They do not establish a behavior regression or equivalence.

## Risks

- New default roles have fewer prescribed procedures. Live checks must determine whether a removed instruction was needed for an outcome.
- Existing custom and saved bundles keep their contents. The retained companion assets avoid a source-file compatibility break.
- Specialized Summarizer, Reflection Coach, and Wiki Maintainer prompts remain unchanged. Their product contracts need separate review.
- The generic non-CEO fallback reduction is in #14948. This PR alone does not provide its eight-word fallback.
- Configuration tests and drafting simulations do not establish live outcome quality. QA, UX, security, and chief-of-staff hiring behavior remain outside the new two-cell comparison.

> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, code editing, shell tools, and delegated verification. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment 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>
canary/v2026.1002.0-canary.20
2026-10-02 17:56:42 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 6eaf218924 chore: grant Storybook publishing access through CODEOWNERS (#14984)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Storybook previews help contributors review the board UI.
> - The publishing workflow uses the default branch CODEOWNERS file to
authorize users.
> - Tonio and Scott need access to this workflow.
> - This pull request adds both accounts as release documentation
owners.
> - The existing workflow can then authorize both accounts without a
separate user list in code.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

Access to the Storybook build and publishing workflow.

**Subsystem affected**

Repository ownership and GitHub Actions authorization.

**Current behavior**

The workflow reads individual accounts from every CODEOWNERS rule on the
default branch. Neither `tonio-alucema` nor `scotttong` is in that file.
Both accounts already have repository admin access, but the workflow
authorization check denies them.

**Proposed behavior**

Add both accounts to the `doc/RELEASING.md` ownership rule. After merge,
both can start and rerun Storybook publishing workflows. A configured
`storybook-deploy` environment reviewer must still approve deployment.
CODEOWNERS membership does not add an account to the environment
reviewer settings.

**Reason and benefit**

Contributors can publish UI previews through the same CODEOWNERS policy
as other maintainers. The authorization code has no account-specific
exceptions.

**Breaking changes**

None. The existing authorization and deployment approval checks remain
in place.

**Additional context**

Related changes: #13226 added the publishing workflow. #13231 added
stable branch bookmarks. A search found no open PR for these permission
changes.

## What Changed

- Add `@tonio-alucema` and `@scotttong` only to the release
documentation ownership rule.
- Test that accounts listed for release documentation can start and
rerun publishing workflows.
- Test that removing an account from CODEOWNERS removes its publishing
access.
- Explain how CODEOWNERS entries and environment reviewers affect
publishing access.

## Verification

- `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-deploy.test.mjs`: all 25
tests pass.
- `actionlint .github/workflows/storybook-deploy.yml
.github/workflows/storybook-visual.yml`: passes.
- `git diff --check`: passes.
- GitHub API checks confirm that both accounts have repository admin
access. The deployment environment requires an existing reviewer and
disables administrator bypass.
- Repository-wide typecheck, tests, and build were attempted. They
cannot complete in this worktree because workspace dependencies are not
installed. Typecheck cannot find Node type definitions. Tests and build
cannot load the workspace `tsx` package.
- After merge, run `Storybook Deploy` from `master`, select a source
branch, obtain environment approval, and check the published URLs in the
run summary.

## Risks

Both accounts gain permission to start and rerun Storybook publishing.
Deployment still needs approval from a configured environment reviewer.
No AWS permissions or live GitHub settings change in this PR.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact backend model ID and context
window are not exposed in this session. The agent used reasoning,
repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, and GitHub API
tools.

## 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>
canary/v2026.1002.0-canary.19
2026-10-02 17:34:37 -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 d7bdfc422c fix(ui): show agent avatar and align chat header controls (#14726)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work.
> - Agent chat shows which agent receives each message.
> - The chat header used initials instead of the agent avatar.
> - The name and controls did not use the same center alignment.
> - This change uses the shared avatar and centers the header content.
> - Users can identify the agent and open its settings from the same
row.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**
The agent chat header showed initials instead of the agent avatar. The
settings control did not align with the name and avatar.

**Expected behavior**
Show the agent avatar. Put the avatar, name, and settings control on the
same horizontal center line.

**Steps to reproduce**
1. Enable Agent Chat in Experimental settings.
2. Open a conversation with an agent that has an appearance set.
3. Check the avatar and settings control in the top bar.

Related navigation work: #14706.

## What Changed

- Use `AgentAvatar` in the conversation breadcrumb.
- Update the breadcrumb key when the agent appearance changes.
- Center breadcrumb labels that have an adjacent action. Keep task
identifier baseline alignment unchanged.
- Add regression checks for avatar props, appearance changes, and center
alignment.

## Verification

- PASS: affected Vitest suites, 129 tests.
- PASS: `pnpm check:token-gates`.
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` on an isolated retry.
- PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build`.
- PASS: browser checks at 1000 and 390 CSS pixels. Avatar, name, and
settings control all have center Y = 29.5 CSS pixels.
- Screenshots use the real header and avatar renderer with isolated
context fixtures. No screenshot or fixture is part of this diff.
- Full typecheck and build cannot complete because Cargo is not
installed.
- Full tests stopped with SIGKILL. The first UI typecheck also stopped
with exit 137. These runs do not prove full-suite success.

## Risks

- Low risk. The change only affects UI rendering. It changes no API or
database contract.
- Breadcrumbs with adjacent actions now use center alignment. Ordinary
task identifiers keep baseline alignment.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex agent, with code editing, shell tools, and browser checks.
The runtime did not expose the exact 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)
- [ ] 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

No behavior or command documentation needs an update for this rendering
fix. The execution environment requires the assigned branch name to stay
unchanged. Pending review gates are not marked complete.

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-02 22:06:50 +00:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip 5b8b2b38ca feat(apps): add Neon connection (#14980)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agents reach external services through the Apps catalog. Each
catalog entry is a reviewed `AppDefinition` that wires a provider's
hosted MCP server into Paperclip's shared vault, grants, policies,
gateway, and audit trail.
> - Neon is a widely used serverless Postgres provider with an official
hosted MCP server, but it is not in the catalog. Teams that run their
databases on Neon must use the generic "connect your own MCP server"
path, which has no branding, no guidance, and no project or read-only
controls.
> - The connector playbook requires a catalog entry for a provider like
this: the hosted server supports dynamic client registration and bearer
API keys, and the common definition fields can express every option
Paperclip can serialize.
> - This pull request adds the Neon definition, its official artwork,
the research and permission-review ledger rows, documentation, and
deterministic tests, without any provider-specific runtime code.
> - The benefit is a one-click, governed Neon connection with optional
project pinning and read-only mode, and a documented path to live
qualification.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Problem or motivation**

Neon is a common Postgres host for the applications agents work on, but
Paperclip's Apps catalog has no Neon entry. Operators who want agents to
inspect schemas, run SQL, or manage branches must paste the MCP URL into
the generic remote-MCP flow, which gives no branding, no provider
guidance, no project boundary, and no read-only switch.

**Proposed solution**

Add a catalog-only Neon connection built from the connector playbook:
browser sign-in through Neon's dynamic client registration with the
reviewed `read` and `write` scopes, or a customer API key sent as an
Authorization bearer header. Both methods expose Neon's documented
`projectId` pin and `readonly` switch as optional Advanced fields. Every
discovered tool stays governed by the normal per-action policies.

**Alternatives considered**

A plugin was not needed because no custom UI, tables, workers, or
webhooks are involved. A separate read-only method was not added because
the playbook treats read-only switches as advanced fields rather than
methods. Neon's repeatable `category` query filter was left out because
tenant fields serialize lists as one comma-joined value, so it cannot be
sent correctly without new runtime code; per-action policies cover
catalog narrowing instead.

**Roadmap alignment**

This extends the existing self-serve remote-MCP connection catalog and
does not overlap planned core work.

## What Changed

- Added the `neon` provider to `scripts/ingest-app-definitions.mjs`
(category, API-key placement, methods, tenant fields, guidance,
warnings) and regenerated
`packages/shared/src/app-definitions/neon.json` plus the generated
registry.
- Added the Neon row to the self-serve MCP research ledger with
`dcr_or_api_key` auth and risk tier S4.
- Added permission reviews for `neon/mcp-oauth` (explicit scopes `read`,
`write`, taken from Neon's live authorization-server metadata) and
`neon/mcp-api-key` (provider key), with evidence links.
- Added Neon's official tile icon (`ui/public/brands/apps/neon.png`,
copied byte-for-byte from the icon linked by neon.com) and the brand
manifest entry.
- Added prosumer gallery copy for the Neon card.
- Added `doc/connections/NEON.md` (service involvement, endpoints,
administrator setup, capabilities and policy, manifest, brand
provenance, validation hook) and linked it from the connections README
and the permission audit.
- Tests: Neon definition shape, store visibility and artwork, URL
recognition, reviewed scopes with scope-widening rejection, URL
projection of the project pin and read-only flag, invalid project ID
rejection, the connect form's API-key gating, and the pinned catalog
counts.

## Verification

- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts
packages/shared/src/app-definitions-url.test.ts` — 34 passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` — 367 passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/apps/AppsConnect.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/apps/Browse.test.tsx ui/src/lib/app-brand-assets.test.ts
ui/src/pages/apps/AppLogo.brand-assets.test.tsx` — all passed.
- `node scripts/check-app-brand-assets.mjs` and `node --test
scripts/app-brand-validation.test.mjs` — passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`, `pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck`, `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui
typecheck`, `pnpm check:token-gates` — clean.
- Manual: in a local instance, open Apps → Browse, confirm the Neon card
and icon, open `/apps/connect?source=neon`, confirm both methods, the
Advanced project pin and read-only toggle, and that Connect enables
after an API key is entered. The operator completed a live connection
against a Neon account on this build.
- Live metadata probed on 2026-10-02: both `.well-known` documents at
`mcp.neon.tech` return the recorded endpoints and scopes; an
unauthenticated `initialize` returns 401 with `resource_metadata`.

## Risks

- Low risk to existing providers: the change is additive catalog data
plus tests. The generated registry only gains one import.
- Neon's hosted server grants broad project and database management. The
definition carries two warnings, recommends a development project, and
keeps every write under the normal action policies; the read-only switch
is enforced by Neon's server, not locally.
- The permission-review ledger records live proof for both methods as
not run; the full lifecycle checklist in `doc/connections/NEON.md` still
needs a documented pass before the entry is considered fully qualified.

> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.

## Model Used

- Claude Fable 5.1 (`claude-fable-5-1`) in Claude Code, with extended
thinking and tool use (shell, file editing, browser verification).

## 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>
canary/v2026.1002.0-canary.18
2026-10-02 15:04:52 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip d6d88b9de2 fix: preserve run outcomes when agent file cleanup is deferred (#14945)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The heartbeat service records each agent turn and releases its
working files.
> - A turn can save its work and finish before instruction-copy cleanup
runs.
> - A cleanup exception can replace that completed result with an
adapter failure.
> - This also loses result accounting and can prevent environment lease
release.
> - This pull request records a cleanup warning and keeps the original
run outcome.
> - The existing recovery sweep retries cleanup from the durable
working-copy record.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Related cleanup and lock work: #14866 and #14869. Related, distinct
work: #14695 retains warm-process files; #12021 handles provider-process
SIGTERM after a terminal result.

**What happened?**

An agent saved its plan, posted a comment, and requested approval. The
provider completed its turn. Instruction-copy cleanup then timed out on
a directory lock. Its exception escaped a `finally` block and replaced
the provider result, so the completed turn showed `Run failed`.

**Expected behavior**

Keep the provider outcome, usage, cost, saved work, and pending
approval. Record a cleanup warning and let the existing recovery sweep
retry. A real provider failure must keep its original error. A failed
file save must keep its failed-save receipt.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Complete a legacy adapter turn that saves work and requests approval.
2. Make instruction-copy release throw a directory-lock timeout.
3. Read the run result. Before this change, the cleanup error replaces
the provider outcome.

The new heartbeat tests reproduce the failure without a live provider or
external service.

**Paperclip version or commit**

The regression reproduces on `c83df091b1a5207375eaf23466bb5c62e4e1518e`.
This branch is rebased onto `cf8ad63c80`.

**Deployment mode**

Server-managed agent execution with persistent instruction working
copies.

## What Changed

- Catch instruction-copy release failures in both heartbeat teardown
paths. Stop repeating a failed cleanup attempt within the same run.
- Write a sanitized `instruction_cleanup` warning. A warning-write
failure also preserves the run result.
- Test successful, failed, and throwing providers; both teardown paths;
warning-write failure; accounting; approval state; and execution-control
release.
- Extend the held-lock test to prove a fresh recovery worker removes the
deferred copy and preserves its failed-save receipt.
- Document deferred cleanup and the run-log event.

## Verification

- Red proof: all five new heartbeat regression cases fail with the
original release calls.
- At head `20bea4f431c916d2f5db1970213aab85f5daa34c`, all 417 tests
passed across heartbeat process recovery, agent directory working
copies, and directory merge locks.
- Full local `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `git diff --check`
passed.
- [GitHub
CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37031119795)
passed at this head. All 53 reported checks passed; the two Storybook
checks were correctly skipped. This includes general and serialized
tests, browser shards, runner verification, build, typecheck, and the
canary dry run.
- Greptile reviewed this head with 5/5, no code comments, and no
unresolved review threads. The branch has no merge conflicts.
- The local `pnpm test:run` attempt was stopped after it reported eight
failures in unchanged suites. Four Slack/AgentMail cases selected an
unrelated ancestor skills directory and failed with `ENOENT`; the two
Slack cases passed with a temporary local skill-root link, which was
then removed. Three company-skill cases reproduced macOS `EACCES` errors
when renaming read-only cache directories. One gateway case passed when
rerun alone. No full local-suite pass is claimed; the complete CI test
jobs passed.

## Risks

- Cleanup errors now leave recovery work pending. The durable
working-copy record remains available for the existing retry sweep.
- This change preserves provider failures and failed-save receipts. It
does not claim that unsaved file edits were saved.
- Native instruction reservation errors retain their existing behavior
because they guard process ownership.
- No schema, lockfile, workflow, API, or UI changes.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, and code
execution. The exact backend model ID and context-window size are not
exposed by 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>
canary/v2026.1002.0-canary.17
2026-10-02 14:16:18 -07:00