mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-27 11:20:42 +01:00
72a5fecb58fc4936f892380da9b5cb3f5f883ebf
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 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
|
b8ffeb973a |
feat(runner): add experimental Grok Bot agent participation (#16219)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents that perform work for a company. > - The shared Runner owns task admission, authority, receipts and finalization. > - An existing Grok Bot needs to receive assignments and return results through that Runner. > - The Bot also needs governed access when it starts work from its own conversation. > - This PR adds agent-purpose MCP access and routine webhook dispatch. > - It reuses the external-agent Rust Runner and keeps Grok capabilities explicit. > - The provider stays experimental until the real-client managed journeys pass. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Agent or provider** Grok Bot, distinct from the Grok Build coding runtime in #13882. **Why this adapter is useful** Users can assign work to an existing Bot, receive progress, questions, documents and files in Paperclip, and let the Bot initiate work under its agent permissions. **How the agent is invoked** A webhook-only routine delivers bounded references. Dedicated named-agent OAuth and MCP provide inbound calls. Setup follows [Grok routines](https://cursor.com/help/grok-bot/routines) and [custom plugins](https://cursor.com/help/grok-bot/connect-plugins). The current desktop app needs its Bot-generated Webhook URL navigation link when routine-row clicks fail. The GitHub search found related Grok Build runtime work, but no existing Grok Bot agent provider. This extends the roadmap’s existing agent, Runner, governance and artifact foundations. ## What Changed - Add default-off Grok Bot participation through the shared real Rust external backend, preserving native provider identity guarantees and distinguishing session closure from remote termination. - Bind agent OAuth to company, agent, client, gateway and authorizer; recheck permissions and task-bound execution authority without manufacturing a native identity. - Persist routine configuration, dispatch intents, authenticated acknowledgement and recovery holds. Store URL/key together in encrypted secret storage, use guarded public egress, and never automatically replay ambiguous HTTP delivery. - Reuse native tools, durable waiting, completion assessment and review. Add task-bound file grants through existing artifact storage; suppress proactive echo dispatch and synchronous result wake loops. - Enforce the current native deliverable work-mode policy at file-ticket issuance and use. Add operator retries for confirmed rejected wakes, with retained receipts, stable retry intent and current-authority checks. Recovery locks bindings before routine rows. Thread Stop resolves the selected run and its agent. - Cancel queued and preparing Stop targets before assignment creation, restore saved setup after a failed request and successful retry, and publish the Grok provider descriptor schema. Advance the versioned Copilot source declaration for the shared schema change; its qualification remains pending. - Filter task summaries with the shared privacy policy, preserve feedback admission when wake delivery is blocked, reconcile settled delivery receipts without restoring work authority, and bind every Stop control to its displayed run. Recovery records distinguish dispatch uncertainty from a revoked session. - Add resumable guided setup, credential replacement, consent, management, observed work status and stop/recovery controls, plus an interactive Storybook journey using the production task thread, question form and report card. Grok’s own apps remain available; Paperclip workspace and third-party tools are deferred. ## Verification - Five focused protocol, authorization, person MCP and Runner files: 192 tests pass. The Grok assigned-work case executes the actual Rust Runner, saves a document, uploads/deduplicates a file and reaches ordinary finalization. - Proactive intake/deduplication and renewed-session recovery pass. These use scripted clients and synthetic storage; they are not real-provider acceptance. - Repository typecheck, production build, token gates, map checks and Storybook build/catalog checks pass. The local full-suite campaign was stopped after macOS shared-memory exhaustion repeatedly prevented embedded PostgreSQL startup. No local aggregate pass is claimed. The first clean-worker CI run identified avatar fixture/configuration, flag defaults, feature-card ordering and OpenAPI route-coverage gaps; all four focused regressions pass after correction. Those regressions pass. The latest clean-worker CI run also found a Copilot source-hash declaration mismatch after the shared descriptor update; the corrected declaration passes all 28 integrity tests. The next review corrections pass 144 rendered UI tests, 21 OpenAPI tests and 82 Runner contract/integrity/history tests. The latest database fixtures were blocked at startup by host shared-memory exhaustion; clean-worker CI must execute their new regressions. Full current-head CI now passes: 54 successful checks and four intentional skips. The database regression uses the PostgreSQL driver result shape; file-policy, rejected-feedback and lock-order cases pass on clean workers. Current-head Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. - Rendered setup steps and outbound-only verification were walked through in Storybook. Simulation cannot enable Done without an authenticated-reply state. - Actual client OAuth, continued access, reconnect and one routine wake with an exact chat acknowledgement were observed separately. This candidate’s live authenticated challenge, assigned/proactive workflows, Linux managed artifact, restart and cleanup are not yet qualified. The provider stays disabled by default. - The separate Cloud ingress change forwards only exact task-bound upload/download paths and preserves host identity and header stripping. - Current Cloud policy reserves Test for pre-merge app/harness experiments; Staging accepts only master-derived revisions. Real-client qualification needs a supported, authorized deployment target and remains outstanding. ## Risks One append-only migration adds routine/dispatch state and extends shared bindings and file tickets. The unshipped migrations were regenerated after upstream consumed their original numbers. Rolling back code retains the durable rows; revoke grants and inspect unknown remote activity before resuming dispatch. Grok cannot confirm remote termination, stream its complete transcript or report spending. Plugins are account-wide and do not isolate credentials between Bots. Real-client managed acceptance remains required before enabling the experimental provider. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-6, with reasoning, code execution and browser/native UI tools. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size are not exposed by this runtime. ## 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> |