Commit Graph
3 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
DottaandPaperclip ce1ee9e89f fix: stop prompts from encouraging subtasks (#20362)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agents read runtime prompts, tool help, skills, and role
instructions.
> - Several of these texts tell agents to create child tasks as a normal
next step.
> - One accepted-plan prompt even forbids work on the current task.
> - Task parentage is useful, but it does not need a prompt that
encourages task creation.
> - This pull request removes those prompts and keeps the task APIs
available.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #10642. This change adjusts prompt wording; it does not add
delegation-cycle guards.

**Current behavior**
Prompts tell agents to create children after plan approval, use children
for long work, and create a task just to pass context. Onboarding
requires a child even for a single request.

**Proposed behavior**
Continue work on the current task. Keep explicit assignments, optional
task creation, parentage, dependencies, and approval gates. Use the
separate-task recipes when the user requests that structure or when
continuing existing work.

**Reason and benefit**
Reduce needless task trees without removing subtask support. Keep the
patch limited to wording, existing test expectations, and generated
catalog data.

## What Changed

- Align accepted-plan prompts and remove direct child-creation advice
from runtime and error text.
- Make task tool descriptions neutral. Keep their fields, defaults, and
handlers.
- Update the main skill, onboarding, CEO instructions, company
templates, specialist workflows, and matching guides.
- Keep historical release snapshots intact. Refresh the explicitly
seeded schema fixture's catalog digest; the server still verifies
historical release snapshot hashes.
- Refresh the affected generated catalogs, capability inventory,
semantic contracts, and fixture manifest.

## Verification

- Final tested head: `c6e304d0c105cdbfbe0b2ab0a233307fcd91a04b`.
- All 66 check runs are complete: 60 pass, one is neutral, and five are
skipped by CI conditions. Snyk also passes. No checks fail or remain
pending.
- [PR
CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42846226554)
passes typecheck, build, server/general tests, all eight E2E shards,
Runner support, Runner Rust, and the aggregate verify gate.
[Windows](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42846226546)
and [Docker
Runner](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42846226108)
also pass.
-
[Greptile](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20362#issuecomment-6751419835)
and [Paperclip
review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20362#issuecomment-6751454010)
give this exact head 5/5. All six inline threads are resolved. Neither
current summary has findings.
- Merged master `bf0220d34a156c81853755c3d1365ddc527037de`. Resolved
three generated-file conflicts with the canonical generators.
- Local verification passes: 473 focused prompt, continuation, UI,
catalog, runtime and native-execution tests; Runner TypeScript build;
generated metadata; UI token gates; and diff checks.
- The prior head `c22018cb0f` failed three SDK evidence tests because
two source hashes were stale. Reproduced all three failures locally. The
existing generator refreshed only the hashes for the denial-copy file
and its test. All 53 affected evidence/source-pin tests then passed,
including private-value rejection. No scanner logic, assertions, or
runtime dependency pins changed. Current CI confirms the support suite
passes.
- A prior commit failed the Rust process reaping test. Its cause remains
unproven. No Rust code or assertions changed. Later Rust runs pass; this
does not establish the cause of the earlier failure.
- Local preflight built shared/plugin SDK packages, then stopped because
`cargo` is absent. Current-head CI supplies Rust and full build
coverage. `pnpm verify --explain` selects broad required CI; full local
suites were not repeated.

## Risks

- Wording changes guide the model; they do not enforce a ban on
subtasks.
- Existing installed skill versions and saved custom instructions need
their normal refresh process. This PR does not migrate company
configuration.
- Existing approved task assignments and approval gates remain in
effect.

## Model Used

- OpenAI GPT-6, through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code
execution. The exact routed model ID and context-window size were not
exposed in this session.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [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>
2026-11-10 09:58:54 -06:00
DottaandClaude 8d2bf78323 test(runner-e2e): resync the SDK public source pins with master (#20550)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Runner support suite checks that the plugin SDK's public types
come only from reviewed source inputs, pinned by git blob hash in
`tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.json`
> - #19614 landed those pins, generated against an older master; since
then `package.json` and ten files under `packages/shared/src` changed
> - So `source-sdk-public-type.test.ts` (2 tests) and
`source-sdk-evidence.test.ts` (1 test) fail the `ci / Runner support
suite` check on every PR merge ref
> - This pull request regenerates the source pins with the script made
for that job
> - The benefit is a green Runner support suite for every open PR again

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?** Since #19614 merged, `ci / Runner support suite`
fails on every PR (for example #20047 and #20538) with `SDK public
source proof unavailable` and `Source SDK evidence privacy check
failed`.

**Steps to reproduce**
1. On master at 902f376796, run `pnpm exec vitest run --config
tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts source-sdk`.
2. Two tests in `source-sdk-public-type.test.ts` fail.

**Expected behavior** The source pins match the committed tree, and the
suite passes.

## What Changed

- `tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.json`: source pins
regenerated with `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs
902f376796 --write` (11 changed blobs,
plus new source files). The script reports `runtimePinsChanged: false`:
the lock, compiler, parser and zod pins are unchanged.

## Verification

- `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts
source-sdk`: 5 files, 68 passed, 1 skipped (before: 2 failed).

## Risks

- Test registry only, no product code. The next change to a pinned input
under `packages/shared/src` or `packages/plugins/sdk/src` will need the
same resync, as before.

## Model Used

- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with
tool use (shell, file editing, test 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 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

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

Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-11-10 08:33:32 -06:00
f4337bb5fb test(evals): land the chat catalog eval harness on master (#19614)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The chat-feature evals measure whether agents complete real chat
requests through the product
> - The chat catalog eval harness and its repairs live on the
`chat-eval/master-candidate` branch, not on master
> - Today's work made 139 of 242 chat evals pass in verified single-case
live runs. Each product fix landed on master as its own pull request
> - The eval-side changes (setups, graders, fault seams, evidence
capture) still exist only on the candidate
> - This pull request lands the harness on master. Master stays the
source of truth for product behavior
> - The benefit is one tree: evals run against master commits, and
product fixes reach the evals as soon as they merge

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #19441, Refs #19599, Refs #20270, Refs #20334, Refs #20342, Refs
#20344, Refs #20354, Refs #20360, Refs #20373, Refs #20382, Refs #20409

**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The chat catalog eval harness and the product it evaluates live on a
long-running branch outside master. Eval fixes do not reach master, so
master-based eval runs use old setups and graders.

**Subsystem affected**
`tests/runner-e2e` chat catalog harness, plus a small set of product
changes that exist only on the candidate.

**Proposed change**
Land the harness on master. Every product fix from this eval work
already merged to master as its own pull request. Conflicts keep
master's product behavior.

## What Changed

- Most of the diff (808 of 851 files) is under `tests/runner-e2e/`:
chat-catalog domains, scenarios, descriptors, the TestOps manifest,
private evidence tooling, and their tests.
- Graders now check saved state, setup literals and rendered or clicked
links. Many keyword and regex checks on free-form replies are removed.
Each changed grader has a bumped `oracleVersion` and calibration tests
(a valid reply, a reworded valid reply, and broken variants that must
fail).
- The shared link helper `hasLink` no longer treats a list link (for
example `/COM/issues?view=mine`) as a link to every task without a URL
key.
- Setup fixes build real state through supported product routes: routine
history, agent grants through the board grant route, budget holds with a
real cap, and a storage-layer archive fault for
`inbox-search.archive-partial-failure`.
- Browser boundary journeys (sign-in, chat-disabled, onboarding) now
write the standard pass evidence files.
- Retargeted cases, approved by the maintainer:
`agent-chat.chat-disabled` (Conference Room gate),
`agents.restore-instructions` (no saved instruction history),
`access.manage-membership` (member permission edits stay board-only).
- The private evidence trusted files (`manual-private-handoff.ts`,
`manual-private-retention.ts`, `manual-private-report-assets.ts`) are
byte-identical to master.
- Product files outside `tests/` (43 files, +1,328 −49) carry
candidate-only changes that master does not yet have. Most are tests.
The main code changes are in `request-human-input.ts`,
`heartbeat-run-summary.ts`, `native-completion-feedback.ts`,
`native-run-finalizer.ts`, `openapi.ts`, `secrets.ts` and
`IssueChatLongThreadPerf.tsx`.

## Verification

- `pnpm vitest run chat-catalog-domains chat-catalog-contract.test.ts
chat-catalog-consistency.test.ts unit-launcher.test.mjs
--testTimeout=180000` in `tests/runner-e2e`: 269 files pass, 3,550 tests
pass.
- `node --test chat-full-catalog-testops-manifest.test.mjs`: 10 pass.
- `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check`:
no change.
- `tsc` for `server` and `tests/runner-e2e`: clean.
- Live single-case verification: 139 of 242 cases passed on paid runs,
and a person read the saved evidence for each. These are single-case
runs, not one full-cohort run.

## Risks

- Large diff. Most of it is test-only, but the 43 non-test files change
product code paths. Review those files first.
- Some graders are now less strict on reply wording. A person must read
replies for meaning on those cases.
- 42 cases need disposable outside accounts (Notion, Slack, GitHub,
Daytona and others) and stay blocked. `access.invite-teammate` stays
failing until local agent isolation lands, because the runner's durable
state keeps a live invite token.
- The paid workflow compares the trusted private-evidence files with
master. They are unchanged, so this risk is low.

## Model Used

Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code
execution, in Claude Code. Subagents used the same model.

## 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

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

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-11-10 08:02:11 -06:00