4 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	9e09d8f51f	fix(runner): clarify native approval argument recovery (#18205) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - First-task onboarding requires a saved human proposal decision before child work can start. > - Native proposal tools reject interaction metadata placed outside their advertised schema. > - The existing rejection text focuses on question forms and does not explain the misplaced approval metadata. > - This pull request explains the field placement and keeps approval recovery in its original confirmation or checkbox kind. > - It also retains safe schema guidance in the run log so operators can identify the rejected field. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #18025 for native first-task proposal recipes and #16889 for safe native schema guidance. Related open PR #18105 changes separate server API-client guidance. **What happened?** A native first-task confirmation copied `version` and `supersedeOnUserComment` to the tool root. Both belong inside `payload`. The runner correctly rejected the call before execution, but its feedback described question forms. Later calls kept the misplaced field and changed the approval into a question. No proposal card was created. The run log retained only a generic schema error. **Expected behavior** Keep strict validation. Explain the nested field locations. Keep a confirmation or checkbox approval in that kind while correcting its arguments. Save the normal pending card and wait for an actual human decision. Retain bounded schema guidance without storing rejected input. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Send an otherwise valid native confirmation with root-level `version: 1` and `supersedeOnUserComment: false`. 2. Observe the pre-dispatch `invalid_tool_call` rejection. 3. Move both fields into `payload` and keep `interactionKind: "confirmation"`. 4. Verify that the corrected call creates one pending confirmation, exact replay creates no duplicate, and child creation still needs saved human acceptance. **Paperclip version or commit** The observed argument shape and initial regressions came from public source base `c32e1ba6`. The repair is based on maintained master `4a6f6a65`. Public tests use synthetic prompts and identifiers. ## What Changed - Give rejected confirmations and checkboxes approval-specific guidance. It names `payload.version` and `payload.supersedeOnUserComment` without suggesting a question-form recipe. Other human-input errors retain complete question-form guidance and stable question/option ID instructions. - State the allowed native root fields in the first-task skill and put the metadata inside both executable proposal recipes. - Retain the existing safe guidance in `semantic_tool_denied` diagnostics. Keep the original rejection identity and `paperclipExecuted: false`. - Preserve only the exact bounded scalar diagnostic payload after verified event admission. The rest of the envelope and all API request/result bodies keep their existing redaction. - Add a real native Codex transport regression and strengthen advertised-schema, card replay, human-admission, persistence, and privacy controls. Update the execution contract and onboarding maps. ## Verification - Red: the native transport reproduced the malformed confirmation and showed that the old hint omitted the metadata correction. A second red confirmed that approval guidance still included the question-form recipe. The corrected transport case now rejects before execution, retains a safe hint, and dispatches one corrected confirmation that returns a pending card. - Red: both shipped recipe checks lacked explicit nested metadata. All 49 first-task admission tests now pass, including advertised-schema validation, idempotent card replay, actual human acceptance, agent-only rejection, and question-answer controls. - Updated native checks pass on the current repair: 95 native Codex transport tests with 2 existing ignored cases, all 32 provider-bridge tests, and the schema-feedback unit control. - API/case persistence regressions were red before the event-boundary correction. All 71 affected port/redaction tests pass in a clean run at frozen head `3be3a70f`, including the corrected envelope privacy regression. The focused 16-test persistence/privacy group and server typecheck also passed earlier. - Full local `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck` pass at exact head `3be3a70f` in a clean detached checkout with Node 24.22.0 and pnpm 9.15.4. Exact-head CI passes: [full PR CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40950360142) and [isolated native Runner readiness](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40950359835). - The full local unit attempt recorded a 15-second timeout in the unrelated Microsoft Teams 100,000-character existing-comment publication case. That failure remains recorded. The exact isolated rerun passed (1 test; 1,814 unselected). The aggregate timeout cause is unproven. That long local run straddled subsequent source edits and also observed the two port regressions during their red phase; it was stopped and is not final-head evidence. The clean affected-suite run above and current-head CI provide the final verification. No timeout or assertion was weakened. - Release-registry CI initially rejected the native test's compile-time schema include outside the release crate's hashed input closure. The guard was reproduced locally. The test now reads the current canonical schema at execution. All 10 crate-cache controls and the real native approval regression pass afterward; the cache guard and workflow keys remain unchanged. - Current-head Greptile review is 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. All required checks pass (56 success, 4 skipped). The advisory Paperclip Review remains neutral/incomplete after one normal re-review request; no completed assessment or score is claimed. - `cargo fmt --check`, map structural checks, and `git diff --check` pass. - Source and scripted-provider checks do not prove that a model will follow the guidance. The original live onboarding attempt remains failed; acceptance at a deployed revision is separate work. ## Risks - This changes repair guidance and shipped instructions. It does not make malformed arguments valid or supply a human decision. - Diagnostic retention adds no rejected arguments, values, or unknown input keys. The API receipt allowlist is unchanged. The validated-event exception restores only the safe scalar payload; optional debug and other envelope metadata still pass through redaction. - The existing 512-byte guidance bound, strict tool schema, company/run binding, idempotency checks, and proposal admission remain effective. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`) through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The context-window size is not exposed to this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-29 15:48:37 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	c32e1ba6da	fix(onboarding): keep approved child task handoffs runnable (#18160) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work through tasks, agent runs, dependencies, and human decisions. > - The first-task workflow asks for approval before it creates an execution task. > - File-producing work must run on a child task before onboarding can finish. > - A child blocked by its onboarding source cannot start while the source waits for that child. > - This change rejects that dependency during task creation and later edits, and gives the agent a correction. > - The shipped recipe shows the dependency direction and requires the actual approved inputs in the child instructions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** After human approval, an onboarding run could create a child with the onboarding source in `blockedByTaskIds`. Creation saved a blocked child with no wake. The parent could then wait for that child. A handoff could also refer to input from the parent conversation without including the input in the child description. **Expected behavior** The approved child can execute before its waiting parent. Invalid first-task dependency input fails before task creation and leaves the same command key available for a corrected call. The child instructions include the required approved input and constraints. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Accept a proposal on a server-created first task. 2. Call native `create_task` with `status: "todo"` and the onboarding source in `blockedByTaskIds`. 3. Observe a blocked child with no scheduled wake. Block the parent on that child to expose the stalled handoff. **Paperclip version or commit** The regression reproduces on `f8484a9f8d1f68e9534fee4f29e00e716dc680f4`. The repair is based on current master. **Deployment mode** Core native and REST task creation. The same server boundary serves self-hosted and hosted instances. Related: #18080 fixed remote delivery of the selected first-task skill. This change handles the later child handoff boundary. ## What Changed - Reject a task blocked by its authenticated first-task source during creation and later dependency edits. Later agent edits also check the locked target's server-owned onboarding parent, protecting a child running under its own execution. Compare UUID identity in PostgreSQL so alternate supported UUID spellings cannot bypass the check. The error explains the correction. - Add a native child/dependency recipe with self-contained approved input guidance. Clarify the general `create_task` input descriptions and update their generated contracts. - Cover native and REST rejection, corrected retry, preserved valid dependencies and replay, and an executable recipe with exact input bytes read from the child's own context. Thread the authenticated run through native dependency edits. Keep blocker corrections independent of a new proposal decision. - Update execution semantics and the existing onboarding map entries. ## Verification - Red on `f8484a9f`: the new native regression received a created blocked child instead of the expected rejection. - Review regressions were red on the original PR head: uppercase, unhyphenated and braced source UUIDs created blocked children; a later child PATCH returned 200 and saved the reversed blocker. - Review follow-up reproduced both native and REST child-own-run bypasses on `75fa75a6`: the native dependency call applied the reverse edge; the child's own PATCH returned 200. The regression uses the actual authenticated child execution and an already checked-out task. - All 95 tests across first-task admission, assets, and the full native tool-authority suite pass. The shipped recipe is validated against the native schemas and exercised through real task/dependency services with disposable PostgreSQL. Rejected PATCH tests preserve existing authorization and attempt-audit behavior and require no requested task-field, relation or wake change. Compatibility controls retain ordinary manual parent blockers, explicit board edits, other blockers and empty-list corrections. - Runner TypeScript build, generated contracts, capability inventory, protocol manifest, and map checks passed. - Server typecheck and all 95 focused tests pass with the child-run follow-up. All latest checks pass on `f24509ae`: 55 successful checks, one neutral review check, four skipped checks, and a successful legacy security status. Both automated reviews are 5/5 on this exact commit. - Prior-head CI failures are preserved: the Runner close fixture had unconfirmed provider drain while suspension succeeded; its exact fake-provider subprocess row passed locally with unchanged sources. The browser outage test lost its title textarea before any outage write. A bounded local control with a fully loaded composer passed every original outage assertion. The prior failure is an editor-readiness race; its exact asynchronous ordering remains unproved. No UI, browser-test, or timeout change is included. Neither failure is counted as a pass or silently discarded. - The first `f24509ae` CI attempt had two interrupted jobs: Typecheck and General server 9/12. Their logs record runner shutdown signals. The server job also records lost runner communication. The same-head failed-job rerun passed both jobs and the required aggregate. It reused the other successful results. No source, test, or timeout change was made for the rerun. The failed attempt remains preserved. Full repository checks pass in CI; the local full repository typecheck, test, and build commands were not repeated. - No external model or provider calls are used by these checks. Real-provider acceptance at this revision remains separate. ## Risks - The new rejection uses the authenticated run and the server-owned onboarding origin. Ordinary tasks, other blockers, empty-list corrections, and already committed creation replay retain their existing behavior. Blocker edits do not reapply the creation approval gate. - Nonempty blocker edits perform two indexed identity reads; the task lookup covers at most the run source and locked structural parent. Other patches and empty-list corrections add no source lookup. The update guard adds no parent row lock behind a child. Existing REST authorization checkout and attempt auditing remain in place before the domain mutation guard. - The explicit input recipe guides the model. Schema and persistence tests do not prove that a future model follows every instruction. - The tool guidance changes the generated semantic catalog identity. The maintained generated files are synchronized in this change. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` through Codex, with `ultra` reasoning effort, repository tools, code generation, and test execution. The context window is not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used and stated the available runtime detail - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the bug issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or 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 updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented 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>	2026-10-29 10:57:31 -05:00
Dotta	b25f3e2af8	fix(onboarding): show native proposal confirmation recipes (#18025) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage agent work through tasks. > - First-task onboarding asks a new agent to propose work before it starts. > - The user must accept a saved proposal before the agent can create its child task. > - A native agent can ask for approval in a question card, which does not record proposal acceptance. > - The skill names confirmation cards but does not show their native tool arguments. > - This change adds executable native proposal recipes and checks their real approval path. > - The task admission rules and Product E2E assertions stay in place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A fresh onboarding agent asked the user to approve a child task through an Approve/Revise question. The question looked like a decision, but its answer cannot authorize child creation. The first-task skill teaches native question calls for interviews and names proposal confirmation cards without showing the native mapping. **Expected behavior** The agent should create a confirmation card for a single-task proposal, or a checkbox card bound to the saved plan revision. Only the saved human acceptance should admit the child task. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start first-task onboarding with a native agent. 2. Choose one task and ask the agent to propose a child before it starts work. 3. Have the agent use a question card with Approve/Revise options. 4. Answer Approve. Child creation remains blocked because no proposal confirmation was accepted. Related public context: #17940, #13517. ## What Changed - Show the native `request_human_input` arguments for confirmation and plan-bound checkbox proposals. - Explain that question answers supply scope and cannot grant proposal authority. - Resume the agent after either acceptance or rejection, and use new proposal keys for revisions. - Parse the shipped recipes and execute them through the real native tool authority and interaction service. - Verify that pending proposals, agent-only acceptance, and an answered Approve/Revise question cannot admit child work. - Use the existing isolated PostgreSQL test helper when a local test database is supplied. - Fix the required clean Grok npm-install check to prefix synthetic revision identifiers with `g`. The former all-numeric, leading-zero identifier was invalid SemVer and caused a reproduced `ETARGET` failure. Customer release versions are unchanged. ## Verification - Red: both new executable recipe checks fail against the preceding skill. - Green: 44 focused tests pass with zero skips against a task-owned PostgreSQL server. The actual tool authority and approval service are exercised. - Human acceptance of either recipe admits the child. Agent-only acceptance does not. Answering the question leaves the issue set unchanged. - Red/green real HTTP checks prove rejection saves the assignee continuation, starts no extra model run, and still denies child creation. - `git diff --check` passes. - Full repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the final approval-guidance revision. - The first full local test attempt used an unmigrated external fixture and was stopped after the cause was confirmed. A new migrated fixture resolved that setup error; the second full attempt reached its explicit 10-minute limit before finishing. Both attempts are preserved and are not claimed as passing. The temporary owned PostgreSQL container was removed. The complete Linux CI workflow passed on the final PR head. - The exact synthetic-version failure was reproduced with real npm and an empty local packed registry. The new maintained regression keeps the invalid-version negative control and installs corrected numeric-hash and normal-hash controls. All 27 existing Grok helper tests and three offline registry-boundary checks pass. - Final head `52d0b92a00dcb0653b6fb48415cfaea979b8f21f`: [CI 40706933035, attempt 1](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40706933035) passed; 55 successful checks, two skipped and one neutral. Greptile is 5/5 for this exact head with no unresolved threads. The original failed build remains preserved. - Live fresh-workspace acceptance has not passed yet. It follows the reviewed testing rollout; this source test does not prove model compliance. ## Risks The change guides model tool selection. An agent can still ignore the skill. Product admission remains the authority, and the live journey must still verify human approval, native child execution, downloaded artifact bytes, context reuse, and cleanup. There is no schema or API change. The CI helper changes only temporary verifier versions and preserves the existing registry integrity, install, lifecycle, and isolation checks. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning, source inspection, tool use, and code execution. The host does not expose its configured 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	2026-10-28 09:47:55 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	50b932a142	fix(server): require approval before onboarding task creation (#17914) ... <!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/78/changes/paperclip/78 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and human decisions. > - Onboarding asks the first agent to propose a task before it starts work. > - The first-task skill requires human acceptance before task creation. > - The native tool could create and schedule that task without acceptance. > - REST task creation had the same gap. > - This change checks saved acceptance in the shared creation transaction. > - Valid approvals and ordinary delegation keep their existing behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An agent could create a task from the canonical onboarding first task before the user accepted its proposal. A real journey caught this after the agent read the first-task skill. A local database regression reproduces the missing check in the native tool and both REST creation endpoints. **Expected behavior** New task creation must wait for saved human acceptance of the latest ordinary proposal. A different parent or a standalone task must not bypass that check. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Bind an authenticated agent run to a server-created onboarding first task. 2. Leave its proposal unaccepted. 3. Call native `create_task`, `POST /api/companies/:companyId/issues`, or `POST /api/issues/:issueId/children`. 4. Before this fix, creation succeeds. After this fix, it is denied before a child or wake is committed. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `3be54534c24fc279533ff421e62a77ad15b72954` before the fix. ## What Changed - Add a shared check for new task creation from an authenticated onboarding run. - Read the latest ordinary confirmation across both confirmation kinds under the source task lock. - Require a human card decision or validated conversational acceptance. Require the current revision for a saved plan. - Preserve ordinary delegation, committed replay, and dispatch recovery. - Add database regressions and update execution and onboarding map documentation. ## Verification - Real PostgreSQL regression before the fix: 17 failures and four passing approval/delegation controls. No skips. - Exact published source: 102 tests passed across admission, conversational confirmation, and project tools, including all 25 admission regressions. Real Linux PostgreSQL, no skips. - `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck` passed locally. - Map checks and `git diff --check` passed. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted locally. Existing suites failed because the host exhausted PostgreSQL semaphore sets. The remaining owned test process was stopped; its failed log is preserved. No unrelated database was stopped. Current-head Linux CI passed, including build, typecheck, and browser E2E. The first CI attempt lost runners; its evidence is preserved, and interrupted jobs passed one CI rerun. - The live Cloud attempt remains failed. Local tests do not qualify Cloud onboarding, artifact delivery, or native tracing. No deployment or model retry is part of this change. ## Risks A stricter creation check could reject a valid approval. Tests cover direct, conversational, checkbox, dismissed-card, and clock-skew cases. The check applies only to new tasks from the canonical onboarding run. It does not change existing task updates, execution policy, or wake recovery. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The session does not expose a more specific serving model ID or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-27 12:30:50 -05:00