3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	6677515cf3	Fix rendered Markdown reply evidence in product journeys ... Match full visible content and exact link destinations while retaining source Markdown and native run attribution. Preserve the original browser regression and strengthen decline source checks. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-29 23:07:30 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	b3c2172d41	fix(evals): verify native protected-action outcomes (#18255) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work assigned to agents. > - Product E2E stories ask for useful user-facing results. > - Classic runner and deployed QA reuse the same service approve/decline task prompts. > - The service returns a receipt marker that belongs in a saved briefing document. > - State that destination explicitly and ask for the document link when complete. > - The deployed decline path also needs the same durable final-reply proof as Plan and Stop. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18222. Builds on the merged reply observer in #18248. **What happened?** The shared service tasks ask for titles and a “verification code” without specifying that the code belongs in the document or asking for its final link. A native QA attempt created its briefing but then repeatedly failed the completion tool’s array validation. Those invalid arguments remain a separate observed failure; the wording change does not establish their cause or relax validation. Source inspection also found that the declined-action oracle requires a projected comment even when the settled native thread renders a durable final message. **Expected behavior** Ask for page titles and the service receipt code in the saved briefing, then a document link. After a declined action, require the existing explanation-only fallback without another service call. **Steps to reproduce** Run the shared service-approve/service-decline stories through the classic runner or QA Product E2E adapter. ## What Changed - Clarify the natural-language task for both shared service stories: put page titles and service receipt code in the document and provide its link. - Use the reloaded run-bound final reply for QA service declines. Pass an explicit native receipt to the existing decline oracle; do not synthesize issue comments. Require the final native run to start after the saved decline and keep exact decision, truthful explanation, no unread marker, zero calls and unchanged connection checks. - Keep classic callers on their existing attributed-comment path. No internal tool instructions are added to the user prompt; ownership, service data and model/runtime limits stay strict. ## Verification - Decline regression observed RED: two cases reject a valid saved native explanation without projected comments. After the repair, 79 focused tests passed across native reply, decline guidance, agent evidence and journey contracts. A two-successful-run control rejects the earlier receipt and accepts the later one. Negatives cover stale/wrong run, wrong agent/task, missing final proof, summary/unsettled/hidden output, false explanations and unread service data. - Product E2E TypeScript and `git diff --check` passed. - Live protected-action qualification is required after merging this and the companion private service/cleanup fixes. The previous failed result remains failed; this is a bounded task-clarity experiment, not a claimed model or completion-schema repair. - Current-head Greptile and Paperclip reviews are 5/5 with zero open threads. CI initially failed the unrelated agent-chat-projects cleanup POST with a PostgreSQL lock timeout after its assertions completed. One bounded retry passed on unchanged source; all current-head gates passed at `64bc169e147290ed4dbaa18221e0268362ce81ee`. The original failing attempt and its logs remain available. The task-clarity change is still a bounded experiment; the observer repair addresses a demonstrated storage-assumption defect. ## Risks A clearer task can still fail with the selected model. All acceptance checks and completion input validation remain strict; a saved briefing alone cannot qualify the complete journey. Only test prompts and test evidence code change. Missing or contradictory native evidence fails closed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this session. Used reasoning, source editing, shell execution and test inspection. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-29 22:14:37 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2badf8a4a5	fix(evals): verify native QA replies on the reloaded task thread (#18248) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents that do work for users. > - Product E2E journeys check user outcomes on real deployments. > - Native task threads can render saved final replies from a settled run. > - The new QA Plan and Stop checks looked only for agent comments. > - Both flows reached the requested terminal state and showed the correct reply, but that storage assumption rejected them. > - This PR checks the reloaded visible reply and binds it to the final successful run. Explicit presentation decisions remain authoritative. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18222 and #18244. **What happened?** The deployed Plan journey completed all three native runs, including revision and approval. Stop completed native cancellation, resource release and a new direction. Their final-answer checks failed because the comments endpoint did not contain the rendered native reply. The original failed grades remain unchanged. **Expected behavior** Require exactly one correct visible final answer after reload, attributed to the final successful owned run. Reject an earlier run, progress text, hidden content, duplicate answers or a cancelled run. If its selected completion comment is projected, require that comment and matching author/run/text. Otherwise require a single durable final assistant message and its settled native final-response anchor. **Steps to reproduce** Run the Plan or Stop journey on a native deployment whose task thread renders the settled run before a completion comment is projected. ## What Changed - Add a narrow reply observer over the existing task-thread hooks. It reloads the page and refreshes saved run/comment metadata while waiting. - Bind native replies to a validated durable final assistant event and the successful run's settled final-response anchor. Require the selected comment when projected; support pending or suppressed projection without accepting a summary fallback. Accept payload and item-normalized finals, rejecting contradictory fields. - Use the observer for Plan completion and Stop's new direction. Keep existing run counts, deployment binding, cancellation and artifact checks. - Add negative grading tests, include the helper in the definition hash, and document its evidence contract. Classic protocol comment matchers are unchanged. ## Verification - 63 focused tests passed across native reply evidence, agent evidence and journey contracts. - Product E2E TypeScript passed. The reply observer uses the remaining journey deadline and backs off polling. - Live Plan and Stop attempts exposed this grading failure. Their original outcomes remain failed; fresh qualification is required after merge. - Full current-head CI passed at `40840ed742977853630d733292461ad7003fc7fb`; Greptile and Paperclip Review both scored 5/5, with zero unresolved review threads. ## Risks The observer depends on existing task-thread test hooks and run anchors. Missing or changed hooks fail closed. It reads rendered user-facing text; a finish summary alone cannot satisfy it. Native event provenance, run ownership and exact reply equality are required. No backend, model, provider, budget or cancellation policy changes are included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this session. Used reasoning, source editing, shell execution and test inspection. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-29 21:35:15 -05:00