mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-10 03:08:10 +02:00
5ee9e751fbb38787c055ee793c3412ecfc89da2e
5
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
96bf004a79 |
fix: use persisted state for lifecycle continuation and retry budgets (#13888)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its control plane decides when a task can continue, wait, stop, or complete. > - Legacy continuation could change when an agent changed its wording without changing task state. > - Shared attempt counts also let repair and infrastructure retries affect each other's limits. > - This pull request uses persisted state and separate, bounded allowances for these decisions. > - If automatic repair stops, the task explains what happened and offers a guarded retry. > - Paired tests and real-provider evaluations verify that Stop, approvals, ownership, and spending limits remain authoritative. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: Refs #13761, Refs #11126, Refs #13610. These cover obsolete continuation dispatch and retry storms. Open and closed issues and PRs were searched for related lifecycle, continuation, and retry work. **What happened?** Legacy continuation depended on English wording and progress heuristics. Repair, failure retry, and productive continuation could consume shared counts. When bounded repair stopped, the task showed a technical recovery message without a clear next action. **Expected behavior** Persisted disposition and owned execution paths determine the next action. Missing disposition prompts bounded agent repair. Explicit work mode determines planning mode. Narrative changes and raw activity counts cannot replenish allowances. An exhausted repair shows a readable notice. An explicit retry checks current controls and preserves the assigned agent. **Steps to reproduce** Run `pnpm test:lifecycle-baseline`. The paired probes keep structured state constant while varying completion, planning, blocker, and progress prose. Run the explicit `lifecycle-baseline` and `continuation-accounting` Product E2E suites for real-provider coverage. In Storybook, open **Design previews / Recovery notice** to inspect the production component's normal, pending, acknowledged, unavailable, failure, and mobile states. ## What Changed - Hide the image attachment button, icon, and drop/paste hint in answer composers. Image paste and drop support remains available. - Merge current master and retain both browser regression sets. Use a production-stamped service worker in the offline recovery browser fixture. - Share one state-based legacy continuation decision across immediate, delayed, and recovered dispatch. Bind bounded repairs to their source run and episode. - Remove title and description wording from work-mode authority. Agents can still write requested plans in execution mode. - Persist separate failure-retry and productive-continuation counters. Disposition repair and resource waits cannot consume or reset those allowances. - Validate delayed repair identity, then recheck current gates before provider dispatch. Fence native startup cancellation. - Show **Agent needs attention**, a plain-language explanation, **Retry agent**, and expandable details in both task interfaces. Report request progress, acknowledgement, and errors inline. - Store typed recovery notice metadata. Recognize older active notices only through exact stored action and run IDs. Notice text never grants retry authority. - Use the existing recovery-action endpoint for retry. Recheck current action, status, owner, agent availability, dependencies, active runs, pending questions and confirmations, approvals, pause controls, and budget. Duplicate requests do not wake twice. - Add component, page, route, database, contract, and Storybook coverage. Keep the scenario inventory and executable evals here. Historical reports and snapshots live in the [commit-pinned paperclip-evals archive](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/blob/ce3e5afcd4a1184650f586a2b5b8be5874c66c8b/experiments/2026-09-lifecycle-authority/README.md). - Preserve unsaved project fields while the same project URL changes to its canonical alias. Do not reuse data across projects or companies. This separate fix addresses the repeated repository-editor browser failure without changing the browser test. - Keep the development service worker from intercepting Vite module reloads. Update the connection-intent browser fixture to record progress and completion through the agent API. ## Verification Merge preparation on September 25, commit `c1e8e4b7ddd9fbc4913ed55ce21b8e12906c2f97`: - Merged master `bd2030932` and resolved the browser test-list conflict by keeping both sets of regressions. - Deterministic lifecycle baseline: 1,090/1,090 assertions passed; no failures, skips, or missing selected evidence. Unit 423, runner 184, database integration 397, grading 86. - Browser support: 17/17 passed. The offline recovery test first failed with an unstamped development worker, then passed with the production stamp. Its assertions are unchanged. - Focused interaction UI and offline fallback tests: 19/19 passed. Verified the custom-answer composer in Storybook: no attachment controls or hint; entering an answer enables Next. - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. The worktree is clean. No new real-provider campaign was run. - Current CI and review: [Current PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36166011243): 55 successful checks and two optional Storybook skips. Greptile scored this exact commit 5/5. Hiding the question attachment controls is an intentional UI change; paste/drop remains available. Earlier recovery UI verification, commit `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. - Focused UI coverage: 338 tests passed across six suites (336 before the interaction guard, with the two affected suites rerun at 149 passed after it). Covers both task interfaces, the real page mutation, pending/error acknowledgement, stale state, and unavailable controls. - Recovery database integration: 352 tests passed before the interaction guard. The complete recovery-action and mutation-route suites passed 181 tests after it. The two new pending question/confirmation regressions failed before the fix and passed afterward, including resolved-interaction controls. Shared validator suite: 31 passed. E2E catalog suites: 34 passed. - Browser inspection passed for light/dark themes, mobile layout, expandable details, pending retry, acknowledgement, failure, and disabled retry. Storybook renders the production component; its request is simulated. - The broad local run hit two chat callback-order wait failures and was stopped after all CI unit/database/runner shards passed. Both local failures passed when rerun without the competing full-suite process. - CI exposed a repeated project-repository draft-loss race during canonical redirects. A new unit regression failed before the fix; all nine project-page tests now pass, including controls for other projects and companies. Both unchanged repository browser tests passed against a fresh local server. UI typecheck, production UI build, and token gates passed after this fix. - [Earlier PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36072486798) on `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: 55 successful checks, two optional Storybook skips, and no failed or pending checks. The repository browser shard passed with the production fix. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit with no unresolved review threads. The PR is mergeable. Historical, source-qualified lifecycle evidence: - Lifecycle baseline: 1,074 assertions. Native session coverage: 447 tests. Product E2E support: 515 tests. Browser support: 11 tests. Full earlier verification is retained in the archive. - [Real-provider campaign: 8/8 passed, zero retries](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35881382080-1/index.html), source `e88d210417280140b44a36449027290adcb1aeaa`. Evidence and cleanup checks passed. This includes deliberately exhausted repair cases that correctly remain blocked; it does not mean every task finished Done. This campaign predates the recovery UI change. - Archive migration verified all 16 original JSON files byte-for-byte and all 24 checksum entries. App tests do not need private archive access. [Archive PR #27](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/27) is merged. ## Risks - Agents that omit durable disposition receive at most two repair attempts by default. Prose-only completion exposes missing state rather than silently changing scheduling. - A retry is an explicit board action. The server rechecks current controls. A successful response confirms the task returned to To do; it does not claim that the provider has already started. - Existing notice metadata remains valid. Only older active notices with matching structured evidence receive the new UI. Historical notices without that evidence keep their existing rendering. No schema migration is required. - Old run records require conservative retry accounting. Tests cover old counters, alternating retry lanes, restarts, and exhausted repairs. - Historical snapshots require private `paperclip-evals` access. The app index retains public campaign links. Live campaigns qualify specific sources and scenarios; no new real-provider campaign has run for the recovery UI commit. > This fixes existing lifecycle and recovery behavior and does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted implementation, reasoning, code execution, and review. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. Historical real-provider evaluations used Codex model `gpt-5.6-sol`, separately from the implementation assistant. ## 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 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5842185e4f |
fix: surface native cleanup quarantine and add chat qualification evals (#13775)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their work. > - Agent Chat needs reliable native execution before native runners become the onboarding default. > - Existing stories covered idle reassignment and controller restart, but not an executing worker handoff or worker process loss. > - Status answer tests also need to reject stale claims and invented facts. > - This pull request adds six opt-in full-stack cells with independent state assertions and retained evidence. > - The probes exposed a misleading Retry across server projection and recovery-banner paths; the fix reports the blocked recovery honestly. > - The tests preserve failures without changing recovery policy, production prompts, or onboarding defaults. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #13762. Related: #13765 (Retry targets the latest failed attempt), #13753 (task context ownership), #13746 (native recovery work). ## What Changed - Add active reassignment with saved draft and plan preservation, old-worker cancellation, and successor completion checks. - Preserve recovery-needed projection when native cleanup fails before its coordinator exists, refuse a generic retry that would immediately fail again, and replace the recovery banner's misleading Retry with Inspect run. - Add verified local worker process loss with a required successful continuation; retain a failing qualification result when recovery is unavailable, while independently verifying the UI/API refuse doomed retries. - Add two-turn factual answer checks for current blockers, stale claims, inactive backlog work, and unknown facts. Retain prose for separate semantic review. - Add positive and negative oracle calibration and document fault isolation, cleanup, billing, and qualification limits. ## Verification - Eval TypeScript check passes. - All 442 eval support tests pass locally. The 89 focused server tests and server typecheck pass. Six recovery-banner UI tests and token gates pass. - Initial new-cell campaign: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35657128077. All six results are retained; four failed on fixture-contract issues and two exposed real worker cleanup quarantine. - All 26 existing native onboarding cells: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35656761484 (26/26 passed on master |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
846336e5a0 |
test: harden agent chat setup, interruptions and restart evals (#13762)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage agents through ongoing conversations. > - Chat users can change instructions while a provider is already working. > - Existing chat evals wait for each turn to settle before the next message. > - They cannot prove delivery during active work or the saved effect of a correction. > - Existing fixtures also enable Agent Chat through the API rather than the settings UI. > - This PR adds bounded browser workflows and checks their persisted outcomes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13741, #13752, #13750. **What happened?** The chat suites cover planning, delegation, status, and recovery. They lack active-turn follow-ups and the experimental settings lifecycle. A sequential conversation can pass even if messages sent during work are lost. **Expected behavior** A follow-up submitted during a provider turn survives and affects the final reply. A changed launch day appears in the saved plan. Disabling Agent Chat rejects new messages while preserving history; re-enabling resumes the same conversation. **Steps to reproduce** Run the explicit `agent-chat-stories` suite. It selects three local cases for each native Claude and Codex profile. An ordinary provider command waits for a fixture brief file so the browser can send the follow-up at an observed active-run boundary. ## What Changed - Add six opt-in Product E2E cells for settings, active follow-ups, and plan corrections. - Drive experimental settings through the UI and verify disabled sends are rejected by the public API. - Use a bounded file wait in the actual isolated agent workspace, with provider-written readiness and an undisclosed brief reference. - Grade persisted user messages, final replies, native run outcomes, and exact saved plan fields. - Accept active-turn steering or one queued successor; reject lost input, duplicate input, and stale outputs. - Allow one steered run or two sequential runs throughout the shared harness, while preserving exact counts for other cases. - Require a single marker-bearing response attributed to the final provider run. - Unload the development browser client before restarting the server, avoiding reconnect/navigation races without weakening the post-restart memory check. - Add browser regressions for restart isolation and asynchronously saved settings switches. - Document prepared-agent setup, native onboarding limits, and the separate API-tool rollout gate. ## Verification - Eval TypeScript check passed. - Eval support suite: 436 tests passed in 39 files. - New oracle calibration: six tests passed, including plausible invalid outcomes. - Browser support regressions: seven tests passed; the restart regression was observed failing before the fix. - Catalog discovery selects exactly six local native cases and leaves default paid selection unchanged. - [Consolidated existing native chat report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35643286055-1/): master `b82661b56`, 33/34 passed, all cleanup passed. The failure was a browser navigation timeout across restart; the page request returned 200 and the chat rendered. - [Nine targeted restart/replay cells](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35645850088-1/) passed on `1fe2fe275`, including the original failure, across native Claude/Codex and local/Daytona; all cleanup passed. - [Initial six-story campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35644832817) retained all six failures: asynchronous switch assertions, unavailable fixture paths, and rich-text escaping in raw command comparisons. The corrected fixtures preserve the same behavioral assertions. - [Six-story campaign v2](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35646270035-1/) on `8232773a0`: 4/6 passed (both settings cases and both Claude interruptions). Codex could not see the host-temp fixture outside its workspace; this failed before follow-up delivery was exercised. - [Four affected interruption cases](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35647760635-1/) all passed, including cleanup, on definition v3 / `ad6ac0545`. Files live inside the actual agent workspace and the observed run workspace is verified. Both providers saved Friday in the real plan with the undisclosed brief reference; follow-ups persisted while the original run was active. Together with both unchanged settings cases from v2, all six new scenario variants have passing live evidence. - Final head `ad6ac05456646c09d3452e320279457625353948`: 54 successful checks, two intentional skips, zero pending/failing checks; mergeable and clean. Fresh Greptile 5/5, zero unresolved findings. - Full typecheck, tests, build, and browser CI passed remotely. One earlier head encountered a signoff-policy browser timing failure; the final head passed that shard. - Local pnpm wrapper could not fetch its version/signature metadata in the restricted environment; local eval checks used the installed Node executables. Repo-wide validation was completed by GitHub Actions. ## Risks These are eval-only changes. The file wait is a timing fixture in the isolated agent workspace, not a production runner hook. Native Codex host-filesystem isolation stays unchanged. It has a two-minute limit and is released in `finally`. The prepared-agent settings case is not full native onboarding: the wizard currently offers legacy adapters. The disabled-entry assertion uses full document navigation, which clears the prior React Query cache; preserved history is checked through the public API and re-enabled chat. No production prompt, rollout default, adapter behavior, or credential policy changes. Active-task reassignment and worker-crash recovery remain outside these new cases. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository tools and code execution. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9d19f98b50 |
fix: harden native chat recovery and add coordination evals (#13741)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - Agent chat uses native runner sessions to plan, delegate, and track that work. > - A user can press Stop while the native session is still starting. > - The server can acknowledge that Stop without dispatching it, then let the session submit a turn. > - This leaves chat recovery waiting for an execution that the user expected to stop. > - This PR waits for the startup handle, dispatches cancellation, and prevents a late startup from submitting a turn. > - New full-stack evals check the resulting records and outputs across Claude and Codex. > - Those evals also exposed missing ACPX readiness fields, unbounded polling, and an old-run identity check that rejected valid warm handoffs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Stop during native startup could record an acknowledged cancellation with `dispatched: false`. The provider could then begin work. A subsequent `/new` stayed queued. A remote Claude follow-up also exhausted the command journal while probing warm-session readiness: ACPX never returned the readiness fields required by the shared transport. Once readiness worked, attachment incorrectly compared the next run descriptor against the old run ID. The 25 ms polling loop could issue 4,800 commands during its two-minute wait, beyond the 500-command bound. The existing chat eval treated lifecycle logs as proof of an active provider turn, so it did not distinguish startup cancellation from active-turn cancellation. **Expected behavior** A Stop during startup must reach the pending session. A late session must not submit a prompt after Stop. Recovery must retain control when startup exceeds the bounded wait. Chat evals must check saved task state, document contents, worker identity, account binding, and duplicate effects. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a native Claude or Codex chat turn. 2. Press Stop after process startup is requested but before the provider turn starts. 3. Send `/new`, then send a fresh message. 4. On the affected base, cancellation can be acknowledged without dispatch and the reset stays queued. **Paperclip version or commit** The live Claude baseline reproduced this on `29d6b3509`. The branch also includes master commit `0f5fafe16`. Related work: #13678, #13686, #13693, #13291, #13738. A separate runner reliability branch also contains a startup-wait fix. Its overlap must be reconciled before merging; this branch additionally prevents prompt submission after a late startup. ## What Changed - Wait for a pending native startup before acknowledging a run-scoped Stop. Preserve the existing recovery error when that wait expires. - Keep a Stop guard on startup. Cancel a late handle before it can submit a provider turn. - Add regression tests for normal handle publication and publication after the Stop deadline. - Back off blocked warm-attachment probes. Keep the fast two-snapshot barrier, fail closed, and record changed blockers. - Add red/green tests for delayed readiness, persistent blockers, alternating readiness, and readiness near the deadline. - Publish ACPX readiness and blockers. Preserve the old authority’s event acknowledgement barrier; only settled sessions can proceed to attachment. - Bind warm ACPX descriptors to the validated next authority while retaining old-run event correlation until activation. Preserve session identity and provider profile checks. - Exercise two consecutive run rotations through a qualified fake sidecar, verifying checkpointing, provider identity, pre-activation rejection, and new-run work admission. - Separate startup and active-turn cancellation checkpoints in the browser eval. - Add 18 explicit native chat eval cells: 12 local and 6 Daytona cells across Claude and Codex. - Cover hiring and reuse through managed AI accounts, source-based review, current blocked-task status, request replay after a lost HTTP acknowledgement, server restart continuity, and Stop/reset continuity. - Use ordinary production agent instructions. Enable API tools only for the two coordination cases that need them. - Calibrate the matchers with invalid records and outputs. Require remembered context after restart and a structured status snapshot that distinguishes the current blocker from history and task status from active execution. Compare the public issue mutation contract and relationships during read-only reporting. Preserve before/after source records in failed eval evidence. - Fix the lost-ack browser harness and verify it against a real HTTP server. Check the chat composer after restart instead of waiting for an unrelated document lifecycle event. - Document the scope and limits of each case. ## Verification - The startup regression failed on the unfixed executor and passed after the fix. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` passed. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit` passed: 424 tests in 37 files. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/native-runtime/native-session-executor.test.ts` passed: 385 tests. - [Baseline live campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35608208868): Claude Stop reproduced the bug. Codex Stop and Claude hire/reuse passed. Codex delegation was blocked by provider capacity. - [Eval-only startup campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35609479786): both providers failed as expected. Both persisted `dispatched: false` and left `/new` queued. - [First fixed campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35610533706) on `c9e95797d`: 10/18 cells passed. Startup Stop passed for both providers. Failed cases exposed eval harness defects and remote continuity failures. All attempts remain available. - [Original workflows and stronger memory checks](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35611896649) on `c04324fab`: 9/12 passed. Reassignment, local restart memory, and startup Stop passed for both providers; Codex remote restart passed. Claude remote restart exposed the missing readiness contract. Two Codex planning cells hit provider capacity. - [Unchanged-model retry](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35613854548): Codex planning and backlog creation both passed. - [18-cell campaign with ACPX readiness](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35614586963) on `6a98ef743`: 16/18 passed, including all local/remote Stop and committed-send cases. Claude remote continuity exposed the next-authority check, now fixed. Codex hiring produced its checklist, but the runner redacted the requested marker after it appeared as “Tracking token: …”. That content-redaction policy is unchanged and remains an explicit limitation. - [Structured status grading](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35614954725) on `50448c228`: both providers passed on their first attempt, including cleanup. - [Complete read-only state grading](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35616089011) on `551e13892`: both providers passed. - [Final ACPX handoff and hiring retry](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35617045456) on `cbd637587`: all three Claude Daytona cases passed (restart continuity, active Stop/reset, and lost-ack replay). Codex hiring reproduced the content-redaction failure: the saved checklist contained `Tracking token: [REDACTED]` instead of the required business marker. All four cases completed cleanup successfully. [Published report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35617045456-1/). The only subsequent commit adds the qualified-sidecar integration test; production code is identical to this live proof. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:browser-support` passed: 5 browser tests without paid models. - Runner TypeScript typecheck passed. All 5 warm-readiness tests pass; two failed with the prior fixed-rate loop, and the late-readiness test failed before the pacing correction. - ACPX readiness and warm-identity regressions each failed before their fixes. All 292 runner-core Rust library tests passed. The qualified-sidecar integration test passes. Rust formatting is checked. - Status-grader regressions for misleading historical mentions and previously unchecked mutations each failed before tightening the oracle and pass now. - [Latest-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35617522307) passed on `a4093c8f1`: full build, type checks, test partitions, browser E2E, and native runner checks. Two unrelated tests initially failed (Sentry fixture release attribution and local-service fixture readiness); both passed locally together (35 passed, 5 optional SDK tests skipped) and on the failed-job retry. No changes were made to those tests. - Greptile reviewed `a4093c8f1` at 5/5; both earlier findings are fixed and all review threads are resolved. - The paid live suite is not fully green: the reproducible content-redaction case remains red. This is separate from the passing PR merge checks. No production content-redaction, prompt, model, or completion-policy change is included. - Managed-account hiring and review cases explicitly enable API tools; these do not qualify default new-user onboarding. ## Risks - Stop can wait up to 30 seconds for startup, then use the existing pending-recovery path. This does not prove that remote cleanup has finished. - Blocked warm readiness adds up to 750 ms between later probes with the two-minute remote budget, or about 32 ms with the default five-second budget. Ready sessions retain the short second barrier. - Paid evals can fail because of provider capacity or agent decisions. Each failure needs evidence-based classification. - The HTTP request replay case checks comment idempotency and duplicate effects. It does not prove replay safety for an ambiguous provider tool call. - The new suite is opt-in. It does not increase the default paid campaign. - No production prompts or model selection change. Review-handoff behavior and content-redaction policy remain separate product decisions. The latter can remove harmless business content that looks like credential syntax; the failing attempt is retained. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository tools and code execution. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
18989a9e73 |
docs: add eval guide, authoring skills, and public history hub (#13535)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its evaluations test both the Runner and complete product workflows. > - The guides and run histories are in separate places. > - The shared Evalbook viewer can make the test boundary unclear. > - This pull request names the two families and adds a guide, authoring skills, and a public hub. > - Contributors can choose the correct test and inspect its history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** Runner and Product E2E evaluation guides, case-authoring procedures, and public result navigation. **What's wrong?** There is no single entry point. A report format can be mistaken for an execution boundary. There are no dedicated case-authoring skills for these two families. **Suggested fix** Add a guide and three skills. Link both existing histories from a public hub. Keep existing campaign URLs and grading unchanged. ## What Changed - Add `doc/evals.md` and links from existing guides. - Add the `paperclip-evals`, `add-runner-eval`, and `add-product-e2e-eval` skills. Install copies in `~/paperclipai/.agents/skills`. - Add a static hub builder that reads the existing public history feeds. - Show a dated snapshot for each family. Label partial campaigns and preserve measurement dates across report refreshes. - Document publication and refresh commands for https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals/. ## Verification - Seven Python summary tests pass: `python3 -m unittest discover -s scripts/evals-hub -p 'test_*.py'`. Run these checks directly; this PR does not modify package scripts. - All three skills pass the skill-creator `quick_validate.py` check with `/usr/bin/python3`. - Build tested with saved history fixtures and the live public feeds. - Desktop and mobile browser checks pass. The mobile page has no horizontal overflow. - Published https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals/. Browser check: HTTP 200, no page errors, all eight links return HTTP 200, no mobile overflow. - Independent skill exercises found the existing Notion-decline case and a direct Runner permission-denial case. Roster validation with an explicit run ID passes. - Missing refresh measurement date: regression fails before the fix and passes after it. - `git diff --check` passes. - No paid evals were run for this documentation and reporting change. The preceding head passed typecheck, build, server/workspace tests, runner verification, browser E2E, and the canary dry run. Checks for the latest commit are pending. Local repository-wide typecheck, test, and build were not repeated because no product code changed. ## Risks The hub is a dated static snapshot. It can lag behind the linked histories until an operator refreshes it. A changed history schema stops the build. Existing archives and grades are not modified. The published guide link is pinned to the reviewed commit so branch deletion cannot break it. Later builds can use master. ## Model Used OpenAI gpt-6-astra for implementation and review. OpenAI gpt-5.6-luna for documentation and independent skill checks. Both used repository tools and code execution. Context window sizes 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (latest commit pending) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (preceding head was 5/5; latest commit pending) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |