PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-29 12:59:13 +01:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	8fe5d5defc	fix(evals): honor the shared feedback read deadline (#18026 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Product E2E evaluations must retain feedback from each paid attempt. > - The collector reads saved feedback and native tool events before teardown. > - A five-second request limit can stop a valid read before the shared read deadline. > - This pull request gives event reads the remaining shared read budget. > - The total deadline and reserved checkpoint time stay the same. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A paid Ask attempt passed the product grade but retained partial feedback invocation coverage. The collector recorded `events_read_failed`. Its event endpoint later returned HTTP 200. The retained timing is consistent with a request that exceeded the five-second request limit. This change fixes that deterministic failure path; it does not prove the cause of every historical partial read. Expected behavior A valid read that takes eight seconds can complete within the 30-second collection deadline. A stalled read must still time out and leave time to save the available feedback. No read or paid attempt is retried. Steps to reproduce 1. Return a terminal native run and an empty saved-feedback list. 2. Make the event read take eight seconds and respect the supplied request timeout. 3. Run `collectAttemptFeedback` with a 30-second deadline. 4. Before this fix, the read times out after five seconds and invocation coverage stays partial. Related accounting and reporting work: Refs #18010. ## What Changed - Use the remaining shared read budget for event API requests. Keep the five-second cap for other reads. - Add regressions for an eight-second event response, a stalled event response that preserves saved feedback, and a stalled early feedback read that still permits the event scan. - Document the read budget, reserved persistence time, and no-retry behavior. ## Verification - Red: the initial two regression tests fail before the fix. The other 42 feedback tests pass. The early-read starvation review regression then fails against the first implementation (44 pass), and passes after narrowing the change. - Green: 58 tests pass across feedback collection, interrupted recovery, process shutdown, and scheduled finalization. - Full Product support run: 4,609 pass, three skip, and the retained embedded PostgreSQL bootstrap test fails on this host. The log remains available. This is not a full local pass. - Local Product typecheck fails on installed workspace export mismatches outside the changed files. Hosted CI must check the exact commit with clean dependencies. No local full repository build pass is claimed. - Original paid grades, partial feedback receipts, and accounting journals remain unchanged. This repair makes zero provider calls. ## Risks - A stalled event read can consume the remaining read budget. Other endpoints keep their five-second cap. The shared deadline still reserves up to five seconds for the final checkpoint. - A slow event page can leave later runs uninspected. Those runs remain partial or unavailable. The change does not treat missing evidence as success. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning and code execution tools. The exact serving variant and context window 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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>	2026-10-28 09:33:47 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3bd0d81c7b	fix(e2e): follow proven workspace deferrals during onboarding (#18008 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Product E2E journeys verify the user outcome through the browser and scoped APIs. > - An onboarding child can wait while its parent owns their shared workspace. > - The server records that no provider work started and schedules a durable replacement. > - The journey rejected that expected wait, and feedback counted it as unknown legacy execution. > - This pull request follows the exact replacement and records the distinct no-provider evidence. > - The child must still finish through native execution and produce the independently checked download. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17940. What happened? The fresh-workspace journey failed with `onboarding_first_task_failed` when a child encountered shared-workspace contention. The cancelled admission had an explicit `workspace_wait` receipt with `providerWorkStarted: false`. Its linked replacement was still scheduled. The runtime had not been selected. The default `legacy` value did not represent a provider execution. Expected behavior Keep both rows and their run-limit cost. Follow only the unique replacement for the same company, agent, and issue. A pending replacement must not pass. Real failures and contradictory execution evidence must still fail. Steps to reproduce 1. Start a native onboarding parent and accept its child-task proposal. 2. Observe the child admission while the parent still holds their workspace. 3. Present the server's no-provider cancellation and its durable scheduled replacement to the journey and feedback collectors. ## What Changed - Add a shared predicate for the explicit no-provider workspace-deferral receipt. Reject runtime, process, output, usage, and cost evidence that contradicts it. - Follow exact, unique retry lineage during onboarding. Wait for active or scheduled replacements without repeating browser actions. Preserve the campaign deadline, run cap, native artifact attribution, and download oracle. - Retain per-run feedback inspection classifications: `native_events`, `provider_not_started`, or `incomplete`. Require exhaustive event reads. Keep pending work and uncertain execution partial. - Add causal regressions and document the evidence contract. Historical failed attempts keep their original grades. ## Verification - Red: the new journey regression failed with the observed `onboarding_first_task_failed` before the repair. The new feedback cases also failed before the repair. - Green: 70 journey tests and 74 feedback-family tests passed. The final affected journey/feedback gate passed 275 tests plus 137 Node checks. Five retry-lane reset cases failed before the review correction and passed after it. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` passed after the retry-counter correction. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed before the final rebase. - The full local `pnpm test:run` and harness unit gate encountered embedded PostgreSQL startup failures. The harness gate passed 4,574 tests and failed its database-startup test. The final focused journey/feedback gate and all 137 Node checks passed. CI will provide independent full-suite results before merge. - Current-head CI passed 55 checks; two checks skipped and one was neutral. Greptile is 5/5, with zero unresolved review threads. - Live Cloud verification will use the reviewed harness and Operations revisions. This PR does not claim that a fresh Cloud campaign has passed. ## Risks A broad cancellation exemption could hide real failures. The exemption requires the server's explicit receipt, unresolved runtime selection, no contradictory execution evidence, and exact durable lineage. Missing successors remain pending until the existing deadline. A successful native child and valid downloaded bytes remain required. No server behavior, approval policy, or budget policy changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning, source inspection, tool use, and code execution. The host does not expose its configured 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 (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>	2026-10-28 07:58:41 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3bd709df8b	Operationalize Product E2E accounting, tracing, and scheduling (#17009 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and the work they perform. > - Product E2E tests exercise real agents, tools, setup and cleanup. > - Repeated runs need retained costs and traces, including failed attempts. > - A passing retry must not hide earlier spending or feedback. > - Recurring work also needs admission limits, private reports and failure detection. > - This change supplies those controls while keeping paid activation behind existing gates. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16996 and #17158. This is the consolidated landing of the reviewed eval operations stack: #17019, #17024, #17025, #17027, #17030, #17033, #17035, #17038, #17043, #17044, #17048, #17050, #17051, #17092, #17096, #17100, #17107, #17109, #17112, #17115, #17117, #17121, #17123, #17127, #17130, #17133, #17134, #17137, #17140, #17143, #17154. The repository permits squash merges only. A local rehearsal showed that squashing each slice into master causes repeated conflicts in dependent slices. This PR preserves their commits and lands their combined implementation in one reviewed integration. Superseded slices will close after this merge. ## What Changed - Retain every attempt's cost receipt, including setup, failures, interruptions and retries. Separate reported amounts, estimates, missing costs and reserved capacity in reports and dashboards. - Add bounded request admission, exact model pricecards, gateway error accounting, cache policy and reconciliation evidence. Refuse unsupported routes and requests that cannot fit the allowance. - Integrate Braintrust gateway traces and OTLP correlation, with secret filtering and experiment imports. Record phase timing, including setup, feedback capture and cleanup. - Collect complaint and suggestion evidence after each attempt, including recovery after failures. Retain explicit review dispositions independently from the product grade. - Add gated daily and weekly selections, measured forecasts, setup/readiness checks, wall-time limits and retained monitor notifications. Include declared non-model overhead in admission while reporting the existing subscription separately. - Keep recurring history private, bound uploads and retention, and use isolated archive environments. Keep public publication an explicit operation. Report and publication jobs install only the committed lockfile, with scripts disabled and isolated stores; stale pins fail closed. - Integrate current master, preserve its Product E2E journey billing and privacy checks, and test that shared setup receipts do not double-count estimated agent usage. Preserve upstream fixture repairs. ## Verification - Complete integration baseline `0649a5ce7544ab20825c2183d2f421157db49f24` includes master `a3e1d915a7110a4e115b46396a3f79e6dfb4d05e` and every original stack head as ancestors. - On that integration baseline, `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit`: 4,012 Vitest tests passed, two skipped, across 193 files; all 137 Node source-contract tests passed. - Focused billing and Product E2E journey contract checks: 24 tests passed. They cover estimates, unknown receipts, single-owner setup costs, browser-only execution and private publication guards. - Monitor and workflow wiring: all 96 Node tests passed. `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs`: all gates clean. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` passes after the standard Runner TypeScript build refreshed local declarations. The first attempt rejected the new master `runner_prepared_launch` union member because this checkout retained an older generated declaration; the source union already contained that member. - Current head `492b0708a1c531a023d9ac10f0f3dc6383cc1754` removes dependency re-resolution from archive-authorized reporting jobs after the security scan flagged it. All 15 workflow-security tests pass after updating the old two-install assertion. - Hosted [CI run 39965460180](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39965460180) passes on the current repaired head, including typecheck, build, general tests, Runner checks, browser shards and canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact head with no unresolved threads. The security scan passes after the fixed lockfile-resolution thread was resolved. - Paperclip Review returned a terminal neutral check but an incomplete 0-file assessment on the repaired head: its platform blocked both diff responses as prompt-injection content. This is not a successful code review. No bypass or fabricated pass was attempted; current-head Greptile, security and hosted CI are independent gates. - No paid test, reservation release or recurring-run activation accompanies this landing. Live route qualification and invoice reconciliation remain separate evidence. <details> <summary>Retained earlier validation failures</summary> Earlier broad local runs had two 15-second test timeouts (CLI poll cadence and Retry validation), one embedded-database setup timeout, and later PostgreSQL semaphore exhaustion. The exact timed-out tests passed separately without larger timeouts; the broad-run causes were not established. Those local failures remain distinct from subsequent hosted CI results. The independent #17158 fix records its Muse fixture collision, its UUID correction and hosted verification. Local Muse execution was also blocked by macOS embedded-PostgreSQL startup. No historical failure is treated as a successful paid qualification. </details> ## Risks - Admission is a local control, not a provider invoice cap. Missing provider receipts or resource charges retain unknown amounts and holds; estimates do not become billed dollars. - The bounded path admits only documented local suites and provider routes. Ordinary legacy or separate Runner protocol campaigns have different controls. Merging this code does not qualify additional routes. - Recurrence still needs the existing enable gates and current qualification/allowance evidence. Archive permissions and resources must match the documented private-environment contract. - Legacy reports may lack complete attempt or phase evidence. Reports preserve that limitation and do not infer zero usage from missing data. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. The exact deployment variant and context-window size 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 (targeted checks; full-suite host limitation disclosed above) - [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>	2026-10-23 07:18:37 -07:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

DottaandPaperclip

8fe5d5defc

fix(evals): honor the shared feedback read deadline (#18026 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Product E2E evaluations must retain feedback from each paid attempt.
> - The collector reads saved feedback and native tool events before
teardown.
> - A five-second request limit can stop a valid read before the shared
read deadline.
> - This pull request gives event reads the remaining shared read
budget.
> - The total deadline and reserved checkpoint time stay the same.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

A paid Ask attempt passed the product grade but retained partial
feedback invocation coverage. The collector recorded
`events_read_failed`. Its event endpoint later returned HTTP 200. The
retained timing is consistent with a request that exceeded the
five-second request limit. This change fixes that deterministic failure
path; it does not prove the cause of every historical partial read.

**Expected behavior**

A valid read that takes eight seconds can complete within the 30-second
collection deadline. A stalled read must still time out and leave time
to save the available feedback. No read or paid attempt is retried.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Return a terminal native run and an empty saved-feedback list.
2. Make the event read take eight seconds and respect the supplied
request timeout.
3. Run `collectAttemptFeedback` with a 30-second deadline.
4. Before this fix, the read times out after five seconds and invocation
coverage stays partial.

Related accounting and reporting work: Refs #18010.

## What Changed

- Use the remaining shared read budget for event API requests. Keep the
five-second cap for other reads.
- Add regressions for an eight-second event response, a stalled event
response that preserves saved feedback, and a stalled early feedback
read that still permits the event scan.
- Document the read budget, reserved persistence time, and no-retry
behavior.

## Verification

- Red: the initial two regression tests fail before the fix. The other
42 feedback tests pass. The early-read starvation review regression then
fails against the first implementation (44 pass), and passes after
narrowing the change.
- Green: 58 tests pass across feedback collection, interrupted recovery,
process shutdown, and scheduled finalization.
- Full Product support run: 4,609 pass, three skip, and the retained
embedded PostgreSQL bootstrap test fails on this host. The log remains
available. This is not a full local pass.
- Local Product typecheck fails on installed workspace export mismatches
outside the changed files. Hosted CI must check the exact commit with
clean dependencies. No local full repository build pass is claimed.
- Original paid grades, partial feedback receipts, and accounting
journals remain unchanged. This repair makes zero provider calls.

## Risks

- A stalled event read can consume the remaining read budget. Other
endpoints keep their five-second cap. The shared deadline still reserves
up to five seconds for the final checkpoint.
- A slow event page can leave later runs uninspected. Those runs remain
partial or unavailable. The change does not treat missing evidence as
success.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning and code execution tools. The
exact serving variant and context window 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
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] 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>

2026-10-28 09:33:47 -05:00

DottaandPaperclip

3bd0d81c7b

fix(e2e): follow proven workspace deferrals during onboarding (#18008 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Product E2E journeys verify the user outcome through the browser and
scoped APIs.
> - An onboarding child can wait while its parent owns their shared
workspace.
> - The server records that no provider work started and schedules a
durable replacement.
> - The journey rejected that expected wait, and feedback counted it as
unknown legacy execution.
> - This pull request follows the exact replacement and records the
distinct no-provider evidence.
> - The child must still finish through native execution and produce the
independently checked download.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #17940.

**What happened?**

The fresh-workspace journey failed with `onboarding_first_task_failed`
when a child encountered shared-workspace contention. The cancelled
admission had an explicit `workspace_wait` receipt with
`providerWorkStarted: false`. Its linked replacement was still
scheduled. The runtime had not been selected. The default `legacy` value
did not represent a provider execution.

**Expected behavior**

Keep both rows and their run-limit cost. Follow only the unique
replacement for the same company, agent, and issue. A pending
replacement must not pass. Real failures and contradictory execution
evidence must still fail.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Start a native onboarding parent and accept its child-task proposal.
2. Observe the child admission while the parent still holds their
workspace.
3. Present the server's no-provider cancellation and its durable
scheduled replacement to the journey and feedback collectors.

## What Changed

- Add a shared predicate for the explicit no-provider workspace-deferral
receipt. Reject runtime, process, output, usage, and cost evidence that
contradicts it.
- Follow exact, unique retry lineage during onboarding. Wait for active
or scheduled replacements without repeating browser actions. Preserve
the campaign deadline, run cap, native artifact attribution, and
download oracle.
- Retain per-run feedback inspection classifications: `native_events`,
`provider_not_started`, or `incomplete`. Require exhaustive event reads.
Keep pending work and uncertain execution partial.
- Add causal regressions and document the evidence contract. Historical
failed attempts keep their original grades.

## Verification

- Red: the new journey regression failed with the observed
`onboarding_first_task_failed` before the repair. The new feedback cases
also failed before the repair.
- Green: 70 journey tests and 74 feedback-family tests passed. The final
affected journey/feedback gate passed 275 tests plus 137 Node checks.
Five retry-lane reset cases failed before the review correction and
passed after it.
- `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` passed after the retry-counter
correction.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed before the final rebase.
- The full local `pnpm test:run` and harness unit gate encountered
embedded PostgreSQL startup failures. The harness gate passed 4,574
tests and failed its database-startup test. The final focused
journey/feedback gate and all 137 Node checks passed. CI will provide
independent full-suite results before merge.
- Current-head CI passed 55 checks; two checks skipped and one was
neutral. Greptile is 5/5, with zero unresolved review threads.
- Live Cloud verification will use the reviewed harness and Operations
revisions. This PR does not claim that a fresh Cloud campaign has
passed.

## Risks

A broad cancellation exemption could hide real failures. The exemption
requires the server's explicit receipt, unresolved runtime selection, no
contradictory execution evidence, and exact durable lineage. Missing
successors remain pending until the existing deadline. A successful
native child and valid downloaded bytes remain required. No server
behavior, approval policy, or budget policy changes.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning, source inspection, tool
use, and code execution. The host does not expose its configured
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 (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>

2026-10-28 07:58:41 -05:00

DottaandPaperclip

3bd709df8b

Operationalize Product E2E accounting, tracing, and scheduling (#17009 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages agents and the work they perform.
> - Product E2E tests exercise real agents, tools, setup and cleanup.
> - Repeated runs need retained costs and traces, including failed
attempts.
> - A passing retry must not hide earlier spending or feedback.
> - Recurring work also needs admission limits, private reports and
failure detection.
> - This change supplies those controls while keeping paid activation
behind existing gates.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #16996 and #17158. This is the consolidated landing of the reviewed
eval operations stack: #17019, #17024, #17025, #17027, #17030, #17033,
#17035, #17038, #17043, #17044, #17048, #17050, #17051, #17092, #17096,
#17100, #17107, #17109, #17112, #17115, #17117, #17121, #17123, #17127,
#17130, #17133, #17134, #17137, #17140, #17143, #17154. The repository
permits squash merges only. A local rehearsal showed that squashing each
slice into master causes repeated conflicts in dependent slices. This PR
preserves their commits and lands their combined implementation in one
reviewed integration. Superseded slices will close after this merge.

## What Changed

- Retain every attempt's cost receipt, including setup, failures,
interruptions and retries. Separate reported amounts, estimates, missing
costs and reserved capacity in reports and dashboards.
- Add bounded request admission, exact model pricecards, gateway error
accounting, cache policy and reconciliation evidence. Refuse unsupported
routes and requests that cannot fit the allowance.
- Integrate Braintrust gateway traces and OTLP correlation, with secret
filtering and experiment imports. Record phase timing, including setup,
feedback capture and cleanup.
- Collect complaint and suggestion evidence after each attempt,
including recovery after failures. Retain explicit review dispositions
independently from the product grade.
- Add gated daily and weekly selections, measured forecasts,
setup/readiness checks, wall-time limits and retained monitor
notifications. Include declared non-model overhead in admission while
reporting the existing subscription separately.
- Keep recurring history private, bound uploads and retention, and use
isolated archive environments. Keep public publication an explicit
operation. Report and publication jobs install only the committed
lockfile, with scripts disabled and isolated stores; stale pins fail
closed.
- Integrate current master, preserve its Product E2E journey billing and
privacy checks, and test that shared setup receipts do not double-count
estimated agent usage. Preserve upstream fixture repairs.

## Verification

- Complete integration baseline
`0649a5ce7544ab20825c2183d2f421157db49f24` includes master
`a3e1d915a7110a4e115b46396a3f79e6dfb4d05e` and every original stack head
as ancestors.
- On that integration baseline, `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit`: 4,012
Vitest tests passed, two skipped, across 193 files; all 137 Node
source-contract tests passed.
- Focused billing and Product E2E journey contract checks: 24 tests
passed. They cover estimates, unknown receipts, single-owner setup
costs, browser-only execution and private publication guards.
- Monitor and workflow wiring: all 96 Node tests passed. `node
scripts/check-token-gates.mjs`: all gates clean.
- `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` passes after the standard Runner
TypeScript build refreshed local declarations. The first attempt
rejected the new master `runner_prepared_launch` union member because
this checkout retained an older generated declaration; the source union
already contained that member.
- Current head `492b0708a1c531a023d9ac10f0f3dc6383cc1754` removes
dependency re-resolution from archive-authorized reporting jobs after
the security scan flagged it. All 15 workflow-security tests pass after
updating the old two-install assertion.
- Hosted [CI run
39965460180](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39965460180)
passes on the current repaired head, including typecheck, build, general
tests, Runner checks, browser shards and canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5
on this exact head with no unresolved threads. The security scan passes
after the fixed lockfile-resolution thread was resolved.
- Paperclip Review returned a terminal neutral check but an incomplete
0-file assessment on the repaired head: its platform blocked both diff
responses as prompt-injection content. This is not a successful code
review. No bypass or fabricated pass was attempted; current-head
Greptile, security and hosted CI are independent gates.
- No paid test, reservation release or recurring-run activation
accompanies this landing. Live route qualification and invoice
reconciliation remain separate evidence.

<details>
<summary>Retained earlier validation failures</summary>

Earlier broad local runs had two 15-second test timeouts (CLI poll
cadence and Retry validation), one embedded-database setup timeout, and
later PostgreSQL semaphore exhaustion. The exact timed-out tests passed
separately without larger timeouts; the broad-run causes were not
established. Those local failures remain distinct from subsequent hosted
CI results. The independent #17158 fix records its Muse fixture
collision, its UUID correction and hosted verification. Local Muse
execution was also blocked by macOS embedded-PostgreSQL startup. No
historical failure is treated as a successful paid qualification.

</details>

## Risks

- Admission is a local control, not a provider invoice cap. Missing
provider receipts or resource charges retain unknown amounts and holds;
estimates do not become billed dollars.
- The bounded path admits only documented local suites and provider
routes. Ordinary legacy or separate Runner protocol campaigns have
different controls. Merging this code does not qualify additional
routes.
- Recurrence still needs the existing enable gates and current
qualification/allowance evidence. Archive permissions and resources must
match the documented private-environment contract.
- Legacy reports may lack complete attempt or phase evidence. Reports
preserve that limitation and do not infer zero usage from missing data.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools and code
execution. The exact deployment variant and context-window size 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 (targeted checks;
full-suite host limitation disclosed above)
- [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>

2026-10-23 07:18:37 -07:00