mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-23 09:07:46 +02:00
572bef4ba7679451ac1543db25cb8ebd533bf919
8
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
c9669a6c22 |
docs(grok): record production qualification and Cloud setup (#16722)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their work. > - Grok Bot uses the shared Runner and an agent MCP connection. > - The experimental Cloud release now passed real production setup and work. > - The setup guide does not list the Cloud opt-in controls or the observed routine-panel workaround. > - The readiness plan still describes the production rollout as pending. > - This pull request records the release evidence and the supported setup path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Outdated documentation and missing setup instructions. **Where is the issue?** `doc/grok-bot-agent.md` and `doc/plans/2026-10-13-grok-bot-production-readiness.md`. **What's wrong?** The guide starts after the opt-in step. The plan predates completed production acceptance and the visibility rollout. **Suggested fix** List the three opt-ins and the Agents entry path. Record the exact tested versions, rollout result and limits. Related runtime work: [#16394](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16394), [#16444](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16444), [#16445](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16445). ## What Changed - Add the Cloud MCP, Runner and Grok opt-in steps. - Explain the supported external-agent entry and the Grok Webhook-panel link workaround. - Record both tested production versions, assigned and proactive results, cleanup, the 43-target rollout and a fresh-workspace check. - Keep the historical failure and evidence limits explicit. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - Compared the report with saved production receipts, serving-version observations, provider image digest, authenticated challenge, download hashes and cleanup receipts. - Real assigned work, question/answer, document/file delivery and proactive work passed on Core `4415665d67b16ffefbe4519c4bdd521f37bb87b9`. - Current production source CI passed its required lanes. The collected non-export checks contain 50 successes, 29 skips and no failures. - A fresh Cloud workspace exposed the opt-ins, saved them after reload and offered Grok in the external-agent picker. All test switches were then restored to off. - This change edits only Markdown. Runtime typecheck, tests, build, token and Storybook checks were not rerun locally for this documentation commit. The plan distinguishes earlier staging recovery proof from current production tests. ## Risks Low runtime risk. This change edits no source, schema, workflow or feature setting. The report qualifies the named versions only. The first-company model wizard still does not offer external agents. Grok usage, spending and remote termination remain unknown. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools and browser/native-app testing. The session does not expose the exact deployed 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, including the runtime metadata that is available - [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 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 Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the applicable local documentation checks and they pass; runtime tests were not rerun for Markdown-only edits - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable; no new tests apply to these documentation edits - [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 (55 passed; two optional Storybook skips) - [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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
60e03c002d |
fix(grok): hold new runs while connection needs recovery (#16445)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their work. > - Grok Bot assignments use a managed Runner and a verified connection. > - Stop can leave the connection held for remote-work inspection. > - The queue started new runs before it checked that connection. > - Those runs allocated Runners, failed, and caused more preparation attempts. > - This pull request checks readiness at queue admission. > - Pending input waits for recovery without using managed compute. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16427 and #16422. The open Grok changes cover the coding adapter and do not duplicate this fix. **What happened?** A real Stop test held the Grok connection for inspection. A second task was pending. Four new preparation attempts acquired managed Runners, then failed because the connection was held. No new external assignment or webhook was sent. Pause stopped the loop, and all leases completed cleanup. **Expected behavior** Keep fresh input in the durable queue until its connection is ready. Do not allocate a Runner to discover a known connection hold. Keep existing session reconciliation under its recorded authority. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Connect Grok Bot and start an assignment. 2. Queue another task for that agent. 3. Stop the first assignment and leave the inspection hold in place. 4. Run queue recovery. The pending task repeatedly starts preparation and fails. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed on packaged Core |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5a9e6b6315 |
fix(grok): avoid false file recovery after Stop (#16427)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their work. > - Grok Bot uses a managed Runner and a fixed external work session. > - Its admitted contract gives it no access to Paperclip workspace files. > - The Runner still has a sync descriptor to support durable recovery. > - Cancellation treated that descriptor as proof that files needed repair. > - This pull request uses the admitted access contract while preserving ownership settlement. > - Users get the correct recovery action after Stop, with native file safeguards intact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16219 and #16422. The duplicate search found no open Grok workspace correction. **What happened?** A real Grok Stop test cancelled its run, fenced its assignment, denied a stale progress update and cleaned up the sandbox. Paperclip also created a file-repair hold. The recovery panel told the user to recover workspace files, although the admitted external contract has workspace access set to none. **Expected behavior** Keep the stopped session fenced and require inspection before new work. Keep failed-run ownership settlement. Do not invent a file export obligation for a session that cannot access the workspace. Native sessions with writable or unknown workspace access must keep their file safeguards. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Connect a Grok Bot and assign a task. 2. Let it accept the task and save a Paperclip checkpoint document. 3. Use Stop while it is working. 4. Inspect the task recovery panel. It asks for file repair after sandbox cleanup succeeds. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed on Core |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7f9d3d1929 |
fix(grok): avoid routine wakes for proactive admission (#16422)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their work. > - Grok Bot can request governed work from its own conversation. > - Managed Runner admission can take longer than the initial MCP response. > - The dispatcher treated a delayed offer as a reason to start another routine. > - The original conversation was already waiting for that same work. > - This pull request keeps admission in its original request and cancels old prepared echoes. > - Users get one task interaction while normal assigned-task wakes remain available. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16219 and #16394. The duplicate search found no other proactive Grok correction. **What happened?** A real idle Grok conversation created one Paperclip task and reached accepted completion. During admission, the dispatcher also sent a routine webhook after the offer was ten seconds old. Two acceptance requests and two title writes were recorded. The extra routine can compete with the original conversation. **Expected behavior** Immediate and delayed Bot-initiated admission stay with the original request. The Bot checks the same request ID and arguments until admission succeeds or fails. A new routine must not echo that work back to the Bot. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Ask an idle Grok Bot to create and complete a Paperclip task. 2. Let managed admission return pending. 3. Leave its offered assignment unaccepted for more than ten seconds. 4. Run the dispatcher. It sends another routine webhook for that proactive offer. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed through the actual Grok client on Core |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
074c67fea8 |
fix(grok): avoid routine wakes for accepted work (#16394)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their work.
> - Grok Bot receives assignments through routine webhooks and uses
agent MCP tools.
> - Each accepted assignment belongs to the current external
interaction.
> - A pending tool result or comment could start another routine while
that work was still active.
> - Quiet MCP traffic cannot prove that Grok has stopped working.
> - This pull request keeps receipts and feedback durable for the
current interaction to read.
> - New task routines start only for offers that the Bot has not
accepted.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #16219 and #16305. The duplicate search also found #12991, which
covers instruction files for local Grok runs.
**What happened?**
The dispatcher could start another routine for an unread result after a
period without a routine reply. It could also wake accepted work for a
task comment. A queued delivery could still start after the Bot had
claimed the offer.
**Expected behavior**
Accepted work stays in its current interaction. The Bot polls the
original operation receipt and reads queued feedback at a safe boundary.
Acknowledgements of a sent wake remain valid after acceptance.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Accept a Grok assignment and leave it active.
2. Add an unread comment, or complete a tool operation whose call
returned pending.
3. Run the dispatcher after its quiet period.
4. Observe another webhook call. Also queue an offer wake, accept the
offer before sending, and observe that delivery still starts.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Observed during real-client qualification on Core
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
32ede08918 |
fix(grok): copy pairing codes during agent reconnect (#16373)
Grok Bot reconnect showed a masked one-use code without a copy action. Add the shared Copy code control, preserve masking and copy-error feedback, and keep the code out of Bot instructions. Cover the reconnect flow and readiness wait in tests and Storybook, and update the user guide.
Verified head
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
538bbd5478 |
fix(ui): configure Grok Bot through its external connection (#16338)
## Thinking Path Paperclip coordinates an external Grok Bot through its authenticated agent connection and routine. The shared configuration form only excluded OpenAI Dot from local runtime controls, so Grok Bot inherited a model picker, local paths, an AI account picker, and a generic runtime test. These controls cannot configure the external Bot and the generic test is not evidence of its webhook-to-MCP connection. Extend the existing external-provider presentation gates and retain the dedicated connection verification workflow. Related implementation: #16219 and #16305. Searched open Grok PRs and issues; the remaining matches concern the separate coding runtime or unrelated coverage. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An existing Grok Bot agent's Runtime page shows local model and runtime configuration alongside its actual external connection controls. **Expected behavior** Identify the harness as Grok Bot, show its connection and routine controls, and use Verify connection for authenticated two-way readiness. Omit inapplicable local-runtime controls and model catalog queries. **Steps to reproduce** Create a Grok Bot through Invite external agent, then open its Runtime settings. Before this correction, the shared form renders a model selector and Test your agent despite the Bot owning its runtime. **Paperclip version/commit** Master after #16219; reproduced against the shared form at |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
51b56706fb |
fix(grok): verify file completion and recover failed sessions (#16305)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work and authority for AI agents. > - Grok Bot runs outside Paperclip and uses authenticated upload grants for files. > - Native completion requires a verified file publication receipt. > - The upload saved the file but did not create that receipt. Real Grok work could not finish. > - A failed run also left an assignment that the Stop action could not fence. > - This pull request connects verified uploads to normal completion and repairs that recovery action. > - The result preserves file integrity and current work-session authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16219, #16274. **What happened?** A real Grok Bot saved a task document and CSV. Semantic completion rejected the CSV because its upload had no verified publication receipt. After the managed run failed, Stop rejected its remaining assignment as a changed session. The driver also discarded the remote monitor's known failure reason. **Expected behavior** An authenticated upload of the exact requested bytes can satisfy normal completion. Stop can fence the remaining assignment of the selected failed run. An old Stop action cannot stop newer work. Known remote lease and reconnect errors remain visible without raw diagnostics or credentials. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Connect an experimental Grok Bot agent and verify its routine. 2. Assign a task that requires a document and a file. 3. Upload the file through its accepted assignment and cite the attachment in semantic completion. 4. Observe the missing publication receipt error on the previous implementation. 5. For recovery, select Stop after that run fails but its assignment remains active. **Paperclip version or commit** The live defects were observed after #16274. The current candidate merges master `739f9e40a4` and is `26c5b9601d1cb2b8f5bb7fcf730f019523763f5b`. ## What Changed - Record a server-owned publication receipt in the verified upload transaction. Bind it to the real native Grok run and exact stored file metadata. - Validate external publication against the actual upload and admitted assignment. Keep existing native and person upload rules. - Recover the committed receipt after a lost response. Reverify the same bytes when an older upload lacks proof. - Hold assignment authority through publication with grant-before-assignment and task-before-run lock order. Disconnect does not wait for remote file storage. - Allow Stop to fence the exact lingering assignment of a terminal run. Reject stale Stop calls for successor work. - Preserve only known lease/reconnect failure codes from the remote monitor. Do not expose raw stderr. - Extend real Rust, overlapping document/upload and disconnect/upload, file retry, completion and Stop regressions. Document setup, files and recovery. ## Verification - The real Rust Grok regression requests a file, checks an overlapping native document save, concurrent retries and lost-response recovery, rejects missing delivery evidence, then uses normal semantic completion and finalization. - Focused tests cover person MCP, native file handoff, completion, Stop and both external driver providers. - Local repository typecheck and production build pass on the current candidate. The five focused protocol suites pass (264 tests); all 17 external Runner driver tests pass, with the driver unchanged since the master merge. - Token gates and Storybook build pass. Nine existing Grok fixture journeys pass their browser interaction assertions; the static probe separately records five fixture API routes returning 404. This is UI fixture evidence only. - Full repository coverage passed in CI. The duplicate local `pnpm test:run` was interrupted after CI completed; its partial log is retained and is not reported as a local full-suite pass. The earlier aggregate invocation was interrupted for the second review fix. - All CI gates pass on `26c5b9601d1cb2b8f5bb7fcf730f019523763f5b`: 55 successful checks and two skipped Storybook jobs (no UI diff). This includes the complete sharded repository suites, native Runner, release checks, build and security scans. - Current-head Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved findings. The PR has no merge conflicts. - The prior live attempt is failed acceptance evidence. Real Grok requalification, proactive work, controller restart and active-session Stop remain release gates. This PR does not claim those passed. ## Risks - Upload and completion now share a durable run receipt. Lock order and current assignment authority must remain consistent with native mutations. - Publication fails closed if the file, run or grant changes. A retry must keep the same upload identity and bytes. - Person connections gain no agent authority. No database migration is required. - Known exit diagnostics do not prove global Grok termination. Grok spending remains unreported. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution and computer use. The exact deployment 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 - [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> |