4 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	84fe89906d	fix: complete native agent review handoffs (#13581) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Native execution uses durable runs, issue locks, wake requests, and typed tool authority > - A child can finish with a native agent review request while its original assignee stays responsible for the work > - The reviewer then needs a bounded execution path that can inspect the child, record one decision, and finish safely > - Before this change, assignee-only gates rejected the reviewer or left the parent waiting after the child review ended > - This pull request adds typed reviewer admission, scoped reviewer tools, durable wake and recovery handling, and parent continuation evidence > - The benefit is that native review handoffs complete without changing child ownership or granting broad mutation access ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #13314 Refs: #13574 **What happened?** A native child run could report `needs_review` for an agent reviewer. The reviewer wake then failed assignee and execution-lock checks. The child remained in review and the parent remained waiting. **Expected behavior** The named reviewer should receive one durable wake. The reviewer should inspect the child and resolve the exact review card. The child assignee should stay unchanged. The parent should receive the recorded review outcome after the child reaches its terminal state. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a native task with a different named agent reviewer. 2. Keep the child assigned to its original worker. 3. Let the worker finish with a native completion review request. 4. Start the durable reviewer wake. 5. Resolve the review and finish the reviewer run. 6. Observe the child and parent state. **Paperclip version or commit** Base: `e926b1301`. PR head: `b31ad9ab8`. Live reviewer verification source: `eea171aae`. **Deployment mode** Built from source. **Installation method** Built from source (pnpm build). **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific (core bug). **Access context** Both. **Database mode** Embedded PostgreSQL in the isolated live test fixtures. ## What Changed - Add server-validated native review assignment facts. - Admit only the exact company, issue, source run, decision, revision, addressee, and resolver policy. - Give reviewer runs a narrow set of Paperclip read and resolve tools. File and shell access follow the configured agent and environment policy, so reviewers can run tests. - Separate server-owned reviewer instructions from untrusted persisted review data. Escape the data boundary; retain server-enforced authorization. - Keep the child assignee unchanged. Atomically claim the reviewer run, wake request, and issue execution lock. A competing lock prevents provider startup. - Require the exact running reviewer session and current issue lock to resolve its assigned card. Reject missing, unrelated, or terminal reviewer runs. - Add durable reviewer wake, lock, stale-card, and abandoned-run recovery handling. - Prevent duplicate native wake dispatches during deferred admission and recovery. - Carry accepted or rejected child review outcomes into parent task context and continuation evidence. - Add focused server, runner, and native protocol coverage. - Preserve upstream continuation rules. Add child review decisions as separate evidence, while keeping real human answers in their own field. - Return actionable completion validation feedback to both providers. Permit a corrected completion after rejection. Keep strict terminal acknowledgment validation. - Apply exclusive shared-workspace locks to sandbox environments. Local and SSH folders can run concurrently, including when old settings request serialization. - Repair test timing, native event parsing, and the review artifact assertion. Allow a valid reject, correct, and accept review sequence. Check the accepted card against its reviewer run and decision. Keep polling within the existing deadline when review acceptance precedes the parent wake projection; report a specific missing-continuation error at timeout. - Apply the ACPX pending-call limit to reserved finish/block calls, with capacity-release and cancellation tests. ## Verification - `pnpm build`: passed on `eea171aae`. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed on `eea171aae`. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit`: 359 tests passed in 30 files on `b31ad9ab8`; runner E2E typecheck also passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - Focused DB review, reviewer authority, and prompt-boundary checks: 31 tests passed. They cover invalid reviewer runs, competing locks, atomic admission, duplicate claims, and valid resolution. - Heartbeat, workspace, and recovery checks: 30 tests passed. - ACPX sidecar suite: 27 tests passed. Moving the capacity guard back below reserved handling makes both new regression cases fail. - Four focused live continuation checks passed on their first attempt at `f15f55e0a`: answer updates scope (6/6 each on Codex and Claude) and question tool guidance (12/12 each). These cases do not use the reviewer prompt path changed afterward. - Fresh Codex and Claude review-handoff checks passed all 29 native checks each on their first attempt at `eea171aae`. Both runs received the expected fixed prompt and completed cleanup. Only the six selected live flows were tested; no full paid provider catalog run. - The final commit only extracts the existing test-harness timeout diagnostic into a shared helper and adds positive and negative coverage. Removing the accepted-review guard makes two regression assertions fail; restoring it passes all six timeout tests. Production runtime code, prompts, deadlines, and grading criteria are unchanged by this final commit. - Deadline regressions: a valid continuation delayed 20 seconds succeeds within its 30-second unit-test deadline; an absent wake returns a specific candidate-failure diagnostic at that same deadline. Both assertions failed before the fix. Production E2E deadlines remain unchanged. - Historical native failures remain recorded: Docker availability failures; a valid reject/correct/accept sequence that the first-card grader misread; and a test that rejected the gap between accepted child review and parent wake projection. No failed result was regraded. The latest tests use a protected reference to the pinned Docker image and the unchanged artifact oracle and time limits. - Full repository verification runs in GitHub CI. Local verification uses the focused suites above, full build, and full typecheck. An unchanged Codex shutdown timing test failed once in CI, passed in isolation, and its full shard passed on the final commit without changes to that test or its causal code path. The original failure is retained in the verification record. Greptile reviewed `b31ad9ab8` at 5/5 with no outstanding actionable findings. All review threads are resolved. All current-head CI gates passed, including the isolated native runner Docker build (55 successful checks; two skipped by the workflow). ## Risks - Reviewer admission depends on exact persisted decision and interaction bindings. A stale or changed card is rejected. - Paperclip control-plane tools are limited to inspection and review resolution. This is not a filesystem permission boundary; provider file and shell access retain the configured policy. - Deferred wake recovery changes dispatch receipt coalescing. A scheduler regression could delay a continuation if the receipt state is wrong. - Parent review outcomes are evidence for the model. They do not grant tool authority or change issue ownership. - This change does not address legacy lease-hold handoff behavior. > Roadmap review: native execution, review gates, and durable recovery are existing roadmap capabilities. This PR completes a narrow reliability path for those capabilities. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6-astra` with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. OpenAI `gpt-5.6-luna` assisted with bounded implementation, review, and journal work. Context window size is not exposed by this session. Live test subjects use `gpt-5.6-sol` and `claude-sonnet-5`; they are not the PR authors. ## 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>	2026-09-17 15:52:19 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	c9021c6721	fix: require explicit native completion reviews (#13314) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native runs report their outcome through paperclip_finish. > - The server previously turned incomplete reports into human approval requests. > - Those requests could block a later successful run, even when no person had requested review. > - This pull request creates review cards only for explicit attention requests and withdraws proven old fallback cards. > - Agents receive useful completion feedback, while explicit approval gates and task state protections remain in force. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #13266 removed reviews caused by policy upgrades. This change removes the separate completion fallback. **What happened?** An agent reported needs_review while waiting for checks without requesting a human decision. Paperclip created a generic Native completion review. A later successful report could not complete the task because that old card remained pending. **Expected behavior** Ordinary low-risk work completes after a valid done report, a successful run, and workspace finalization. Incomplete work stays with the agent. Explicit approval requests remain visible and must be resolved. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Complete a native run with needs_review and no attention requests. 2. Continue the task and submit a successful done report. 3. Observe that the old implementation leaves the task in review behind a generic confirmation card. ## What Changed - Require explicit attention requests to create native review cards. Route each request independently and preserve pending or declined decisions. - Withdraw only pending system cards with matching old decision, assessment, effect, contract, and prompt provenance. Preserve history and explicit or answered requests. - Reassess an affected current result without overwriting later task edits, runs, contracts, or workspace failures. - Return pending approval links and required actions through the completion tool. Reject contradictory done reports and empty review requests before accepting a result. - Allow one corrective continuation for incomplete results, then expose a recovery action. - Update status fixtures, database regressions, runner tests, and the completion contract documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after merging current master. - `pnpm build` passed after merging current master. - The combined branch passed 89 completion and Agent Chat tests. Other targeted tests passed: 170 external-chat and reconciliation tests; 50 runner-resume and control-plane tests; 13 arbiter tests; 7 chat delivery tests; 21 runner completion and runtime-context tests. - The full local test attempt exposed old review fixtures and a missing fake-provider binary. The fixtures are fixed and the helper is built. All affected suites pass in fresh reruns. The timing-sensitive Discord test also passed on rerun. - All latest-head CI checks passed, including build, typecheck, general and serialized tests, runner verification, browser tests, and canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved comments. ## Risks - Cleanup changes existing pending cards. It requires exact system provenance and only applies to low-risk agent-claim contracts. It does not delete history or dismiss explicit requests. - Status still commits after the turn and workspace finalization. Completion feedback reports current constraints and does not claim an early status commit. - Incomplete reports now request a bounded corrective run instead of an automatic approval. Repeated failures expose recovery. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and test tools. The exact deployment identifier 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>	2026-09-12 13:00:04 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	a12bbd1824	fix: stop completion reviews caused by policy upgrades (#13266) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The native runtime records completion assessments and task decisions. > - An application update can change the assessment policy version. > - The previous code treated that version change as a reason for human review. > - An upgrade alone does not give the user a new decision to make. > - This change keeps existing decisions and withdraws obsolete upgrade review cards. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A rules version change moved unfinished tasks into review and created a card that said, "Review the superseding native policy assessment." The task did not need new work or a human decision. **Expected behavior** New runs use the current rules. An upgrade leaves existing task decisions alone. The saved policy version remains available in the audit history. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Save a native run assessment and a task decision. 2. Change the native status policy version. 3. Run finalization reconciliation without new task evidence. 4. The previous code created a review card. The corrected code keeps the saved assessment and decision. Related context: #13038 changed the native policy version. Searches found no duplicate fix for upgrade-only completion reviews. ## What Changed - Remove policy-version mismatch as a reconciliation trigger. - Withdraw pending cards only when their source decision, effect ledger, creator, key, and prompt match the old upgrade-only review. - Restore the previous status only while that decision and status version remain current and no other review gate is pending. - Preserve answered cards, real review requests, later task changes, and historical assessments and decisions. - Record cleanup activity and retire any corresponding chat review actions. - Isolate cleanup failures so one old card cannot block other cleanup or normal finalization. - Update the status conformance fixture, regression tests, and architecture documentation. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/native-status-arbiter-corpus.test.ts` (23 tests, including the 53-fixture status corpus). - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Passed: `git diff --check`. - Passed: `pnpm build`. - Passed: fresh Greptile review at 5/5 on `d24e5ecaf`, with no open review threads. - Passed: the 23 focused tests in the isolated full-suite environment. - Local `pnpm test:run`: the server group finished with 10,638 passed and one missing-fixture failure. Built the required `fake-codex-app-server` fixture and reran the entire affected native session-resume suite: 37/37 passed. The initial full command exited on that server-group failure, so remaining groups are covered by CI. - Passed: the workspace-runtime-exposure suite (25 tests, 3 platform skips). - Passed: all CI gates, including every test shard, browser tests, typecheck, and build. The server shard passed on one retry after an unrelated host-port conflict in the unchanged workspace-exposure tests. - Cleanup tests cover repeat runs, real reviews, answered cards, later statuses, newer decision identity, status changes back to review, other pending requests, run scope, cleanup failures, retry, and live publication failures. ## Risks - Cleanup changes stored task state. It checks the exact obsolete decision and status version under database locks before restoring status. - Pending approvals, interactions, and execution stages prevent restoration out of review. - The cleanup handles at most 100 matching cards per reconciliation pass. It does not rewrite old decisions or accept an agent's completion claim. - New evidence and explicit task changes still use the existing reconciliation paths. This change does not reevaluate old work merely because Paperclip was updated. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact deployment identifier and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, and automated tests. ## 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>	2026-09-11 16:55:46 -05:00
DottaandDev Agent	25cf079ec5	feat(runner): add Codex-native application integration (#12591) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner package is useful only when the application can start, observe, and recover a native Codex run safely. > - Existing direct adapters must keep their current execution and finalization paths. > - The application boundary therefore needs additive persistence, authorization, coordination, and recovery behind an explicit experimental adapter. > - This pull request adds that Codex-only boundary without activating generalized providers, remote environments, or the later task/SDK surfaces. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Shared contracts, database persistence, adapter utilities, server native-runtime services, and the experimental Paperclip Runner adapter. **Problem or motivation** The already-landed runner package has a qualified Codex path, but the application needs durable native-run state, guarded runtime selection, authenticated coordination, tool security, finalization, and recovery before the experimental adapter can be exercised safely. **Proposed solution** Add a Codex-only `paperclip_runner` application path behind the existing default-off native-runner setting. Bind native state and coordination to company/run identity, preserve persisted-run recovery, and leave every direct adapter on its existing legacy execution path. **Alternatives considered** The earlier stack boundary introduced a generalized executor and remote-environment lifecycle here. That made this PR depend on implementations in higher PRs and changed reusable sandbox behavior globally. Those pieces are now deferred together to #12592. **Roadmap alignment** ROADMAP.md does not list a conflicting native-runner integration project. This change adds the application boundary for the existing Runner architecture. ## What Changed - Added native run/result/finalization/provider-trace persistence, shared validators, and idempotent migration/replay coverage. - Added guarded Codex-only runtime selection, authenticated PRP coordination, recovery, finalization, and interaction services. - Added run/company-bound tool-gateway authorization, credential redaction, SSRF protections, and replay-safe behavior. - Added the explicit `paperclip_runner` adapter behind the default-off rollout setting. - Preserved legacy answered-question wake projection and direct-adapter execution/finalization paths. - Hardened cancellation so only owned in-memory child processes are signaled; persisted recycled PIDs/process groups are never trusted. - Retained the narrow Claude ACPX isolated-context security follow-up discovered after #12590. - Deferred the generalized executor, provider ingress, remote lifecycle, SDK/lab/eval work, release-process changes, and lockfile. ## Verification - Changed-file delta against `master`: 133 files. - GitHub Actions is the authoritative verification environment for this PR. - Full CI, security, and Greptile review will run on this lowest unmerged stack PR. - Local tests/build/typecheck were not run because this checkout is resource constrained. - Static diff/reference checks pass, and `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged. ## Risks - This touches central heartbeat and agent-route code, so legacy compatibility is the primary risk. - Runtime selection remains Codex-only and explicit; direct Codex, Claude, OpenCode, process, HTTP, and plugin adapters remain on their existing paths. - Fresh native starts fail closed while the rollout flag is off; persisted native records remain readable and recoverable. - Cancellation, company/run binding, tool calls, status decisions, and completion writes are guarded or replay-safe. > 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. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with repository tools, code execution, and parallel agent review. ## 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 linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant 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 Paperclip ticket id - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — GitHub Actions is authoritative for this resource-constrained checkout - [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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI and security gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open actionable findings - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge ## Stack - Position: 3 of 5 overall; lowest of 3 currently unmerged - Base: `master` - Previous: [#12590](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12590), qualified Claude ACPX runtime — merged - Next: [#12592](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12592), generalized Codex executor, task experience, and developer SDKs --------- Co-authored-by: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-31 14:38:38 -05:00