mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-23 17:33:51 +02:00
8cfa4b33a479275a1bbfd6edb6b7ce91bf68d2a2
4821
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
8cfa4b33a4 |
fix: recover quota credentials before runtime use and auth failure
Also show safe quota transport failures and shared timestamp formatting. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
1cf7bba6f2 |
Merge reviewed ACPX receipt retention and deterministic test teardown
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
28d661a124 |
Merge deterministic heartbeat fixture teardown
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
79b7516322 |
fix: retain ACPX usage when receipt persistence rejects
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
722db815da |
test: drain heartbeat work before deleting recovery fixtures
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
7c6d3f1526 |
Merge current master and adapter startup proof
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
f0b683a24e |
Merge current master and resolved fixture synchronization
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
2d56b73b75 |
fix: discard obsolete quota recovery after reconnect
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
99c84ccca2 |
Merge current master into accounting test isolation
Keep upstream runtime startup assertions, which independently fix the same PID-persistence race, alongside our port-claim isolation and canonical path fixtures. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
0ae6037cf2 |
Merge upstream runtime metadata test synchronization
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
7966dac682 |
fix: journal exchanged quota credentials before transactional save
Encrypt and fsync replacement OAuth tokens before vault/grant/activity writes. Retry failed saves from the journal without consuming the old refresh token again; retain durable recovery through rollback, commit failures, restart, and lost commit responses. Fence replay against revocation and reconnect. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
420af2835f |
Merge runtime metadata fixture synchronization
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
87b5bd6aae |
test: await committed runtime metadata before asserting process identity
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
1dd6c03d2c |
Merge adapter startup accounting proof and test isolation
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
065bf17ba3 |
fix: preserve proof of process adapter bootstrap failures
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
2d30ee8868 |
Merge runtime test isolation fixes into adapter receipts
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
1275ef8282 |
test: isolate runtime port claims and canonicalize fixture paths
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
fc97e24392 |
fix: retain and retry contended credential write-back
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
8bd5846ba0 |
fix: preserve OAuth refresh lifetime and quota revision caches
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
c4f738d112 |
Merge bounded provider record accounting into quota stack
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
fb8b03a083 |
fix: bound accounting strings before buffering provider records
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
dfd62bd7e2 |
fix: recheck credential versions after waits and defer conflicting refreshes
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
beb28fef65 |
Merge full-stream accounting fixes into quota stack
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
6e7168ac5c |
fix: retain full-stream usage and scope biller inference to its provider
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
7cf8df553d |
fix: serialize managed credential refresh with reads and secret edits
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
feba1f926f |
Merge adapter timeout contract regression update
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
14bc077440 |
test: distinguish unavailable Kimi prices from incomplete receipts
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
bd377f0906 |
fix: recover managed quota credentials and preserve account displays
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
2c29548c8c |
Merge reviewed adapter receipt fixes into account quota reporting
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
17bb7679b5 |
test: clean up interrupted usage fixture formatting
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
c858cf52b0 |
fix: settle adapter usage only with terminal accounting evidence
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
f056a4ae59 |
Merge test isolation review fixes into adapter receipts
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
1885918563 |
test: preserve host port leases with isolated test homes
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
994d6edcdd |
Fix Markdown in provisional task titles (#15047)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses issues to organize work for AI agents. > - Paperclip creates a provisional issue title from the issue description. > - A description can start with a Markdown image or other Markdown syntax. > - The old title logic truncated the raw Markdown source. > - This pull request parses Markdown before it truncates the title. > - The benefit is a short and readable provisional title. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** When an issue description started with a Markdown image, Paperclip used the raw image syntax and URL in the provisional title. Other common Markdown markers could also appear in the title. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must remove Markdown syntax before it creates the 120-character provisional title. It must keep useful text, such as link labels and inline code content. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an issue without an explicit title. 2. Start the issue description with a Markdown image. 3. Add Markdown text after the image. 4. Observe that the provisional title contains raw Markdown syntax or an image URL. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem reproduces on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local development with the embedded PGlite database. ## What Changed - Parse the description and remove image nodes before title generation. - Convert the remaining Markdown to plain text before the 120-character limit. - Keep link labels, inline code, and identifier punctuation. - Use image alt text, or `Image`, for an image-only description. - Fall back to a simple 120-character title if Markdown parsing or conversion fails. - Add regression tests for image and inline-code titles, parser failures, and text-conversion failures. ## Verification - `./node_modules/.bin/vitest run server/src/__tests__/task-title-routes.test.ts` - `./node_modules/.bin/tsc -p server/tsconfig.json --noEmit` - Full GitHub CI matrix passed on commit `663f3a0517c9e450f174b6c37970756457067ba5`. - Greptile reviewed the latest commit with a 5/5 confidence score and no unresolved findings. ## Risks - Low risk. This change only affects generated provisional titles. It does not change explicit titles or full issue descriptions. - The implementation uses the Markdown parser and plain-text converter that are already present in the server. > This is a focused bug fix. It does not add planned core work from `ROADMAP.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The run used reasoning, tool use, code execution, and repository access. The runtime did not expose the 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>canary/v2026.1004.0-canary.1 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
db72ad4c73 |
fix(ui): explain branch artifacts without remote links (#15051)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage agent work and inspect its results. > - The issue artifact list presents those results as work-product cards. > - A branch can have no remote URL or structured metadata. > - The current card hides its summary and has no action in that case. > - This pull request shows the summary and provides an accessible details action. > - The card labels the absent link without making a false link. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A branch work product without a URL showed a short title and an icon. It did not show the saved summary or provide an action. **Expected behavior** The card must show what the branch contains. People must be able to open the saved details. It must not imply that a remote URL exists. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open the artifact list of an issue with a branch work product that has `url: null` and `metadata: null`. 2. Find the branch card. Its summary and details action are missing before this change. Related work: #12717 introduced rich work-product cards. ## What Changed - Keep linkless branch cards concise: show the title and no-link state. Keep the full summary behind an optional Saved description toggle. - Label a branch with no URL as having no remote link. Let a person open its details with a keyboard-accessible button. - Add a focused interaction test and two Storybook states for the no-link branch. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - Focused Vitest tests passed: 45 tests in two files. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - The Storybook collapsed and expanded states rendered in Chromium. Both screenshots were captured. - Full workspace typecheck could not finish: the runner Rust package requires `cargo`, which is not installed in this environment. ## Risks - Low risk. The change affects card text and the action for records without a URL. It does not change the saved data or routes. - Long saved summaries on other linkless work products expand the card height after a person selects Details. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent. The execution environment does not expose the exact model ID or context window to this agent. It used code execution and a browser to validate the change. ## 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) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details (the managed execution workspace fixes this branch name) - [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 (Storybook examples) - [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>canary/v2026.1004.0-canary.0 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
2a8a99e4a5 |
fix(ui): reveal completed thinking caret beside label (#15048)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - The task thread shows completed agent work and its reasoning. > - The completed work row places the disclosure caret at the far right. > - The caret stays visible even when the reader does not inspect the row. > - The row needs a quiet control that stays close to the work label. > - This pull request places the caret after that label and shows it on hover or keyboard focus. > - The change keeps the timestamp on the right and does not move content on hover. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The completed agent work row shows a disclosure caret at the far right of the task thread. The caret stays visible when the pointer is elsewhere. **Expected behavior** The caret stays near the work label. It appears on hover or keyboard focus. The timestamp stays on the right. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task with a completed agent run. 2. Look at the completed work row without hovering over it. 3. Hover over the row and then use the keyboard to focus its button. Related: #11772 addresses a different caret and composer layout. ## What Changed - Move the completed work caret next to the work label. - Keep its space reserved. Show it on hover or keyboard focus. - Add a test for caret position, visibility classes, and the open state. ## Verification - `node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx` passes all 100 tests. - `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` passes all token gates. - `git diff origin/master...HEAD --check` passes. - CI passes on the latest head, including typecheck, build, tests, and verification. The local isolated worktree could not run typecheck because dependency installation failed while applying the existing `codex-acp` patch. ## Risks - Low risk. The same button still opens the work detail. Only the caret position and visibility change. - On a touch device, the caret is not visible without hover. The work row stays a button that users can tap. > This is a focused UI fix. It does not add a planned core feature from `ROADMAP.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent. The runner does not expose the exact model ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, shell tools, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used with the details available in this runner - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked public issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket ID - [x] I have run focused tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have checked documentation impact; no documentation change is needed for this visual fix - [x] I have considered and documented the 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>canary/v2026.1003.0-canary.9 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1c3abf5075 |
fix(ui): use available space for composer labels (#15050)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - The task composer shows the next assignee and model before a message starts work. > - Fixed width limits shortened both labels when the composer had unused space. > - People could not read the selected agent and model even when the full text could fit. > - This pull request makes the capsule use the available composer width. > - It keeps the ellipsis when Plan mode or a narrow layout causes real space pressure. > - The benefit is clearer run settings without damage to the compact composer layout. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The task composer truncated the assignee name at 6rem and the complete assignee and model capsule at 16rem. It did this even when the composer had more available space. **Expected behavior** The composer must show the complete assignee and model labels when they fit. It must use an ellipsis only when another control or a narrow viewport limits the available width. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task composer with a long assignee name and a long model name. 2. Use a wide desktop layout. 3. Observe that the old capsule shortened both labels while unused space remained. **Paperclip version or commit** Current `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local dev (`pnpm dev`). **Installation method** Built from source. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. This is a core UI bug. **Database mode** Not database-related. **Access context** Board. **Additional context** The Storybook cases cover a wide composer and a narrow composer with Plan mode. ## What Changed - Removed the fixed maximum width from the assignee and model capsule. - Removed the fixed maximum width from the assignee label. - Kept overflow ellipsis behavior when the parent row has insufficient space. - Added stable label selectors and focused component coverage. - Added Storybook cases for complete labels and Plan-mode truncation. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `vitest run ui/src/components/task-chat/ComposerRunSettingsPicker.test.tsx` - `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` - Storybook production build under Node.js 24.20.0 - Captured and inspected the two new Storybook cases. - The complete repository typecheck and build reach the Rust Runner step. This local environment does not have `cargo`. Hosted CI supplies the Rust toolchain. - The repository test suite reaches workspace-runtime tests. This local runner does not allow their required temporary home directories. Hosted CI supplies a writable test home. ## Risks - Low risk. The change only removes fixed width limits from one flex item. - A very narrow composer can still shorten both labels. This is the intended fallback. - The Storybook constrained case verifies that Plan mode and Send remain usable. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 through the Paperclip Codex runner. The run used reasoning, tool use, code execution, browser automation, and image 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) - [ ] 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
|
eb049aebf2 |
feat(skills): let agents update company skills safely (#15049)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is an open source control plane for AI-agent companies. > - Company skills give agents reusable work instructions. > - Skill Studio can edit skill files and save version history. > - Agents can create a skill, but they do not have a first-class update tool. > - An agent update needs a version check and safe retry behavior to prevent lost edits. > - This pull request adds `update_skill` through the existing company skill file API. > - The change keeps company policy, version history, and audit records in one path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: the server API, shared validation, and runner tool catalog. **Problem or motivation** An agent can create a company skill but cannot update its `SKILL.md` through a first-class tool. An unguarded retry can also create duplicate versions or overwrite a newer edit. **Proposed solution** Add `update_skill` with a required current version ID and a retry key. Route it through the existing skill file API. Reject stale versions and changed-input retries. Save the version and audit event together. **Alternatives considered** A separate write endpoint would duplicate the Skill Studio mutation path and policy checks. This PR reuses that path instead. **Roadmap alignment** This work extends Skills Manager and Skill Studio, which are listed in `ROADMAP.md`. **Additional context** The tool accepts a complete `SKILL.md`, not a partial patch. Callers must read the current version before they edit it. ## What Changed - Add optional version and retry fields to the existing skill file update contract. - Add a guarded API update with a stable retry receipt and attributed audit event. - Add `update_skill` to native and semantic runner tool catalogs, with mode and policy gates. - Add unit, integration, protocol, and semantic-tool regression coverage. - Document agent use and extend the OpenAPI request contract. ## Verification - Focused tests and direct server and runner TypeScript checks passed before this PR. - `git diff --check` passed after the rebase onto `master`. - CI passed on the latest PR head, including the full test matrix, typecheck, and build. Local full typecheck and build stopped because `cargo` is not installed. The local full test run ended without a verdict. - No dedicated end-to-end eval scenario was added or run. The protocol coverage and semantic-tool test cover the new action deterministically. - Reviewers can read a skill version, call `update_skill`, repeat the same key, then try a stale version and a changed-input key. Only the first edit must create a new version. ## Risks - File writes and database transactions must stay in sync when a write fails. The integration tests cover failed writes and retry behavior, but CI must verify them on the PR head. - Existing Skill Studio callers do not send the new optional coordination fields. Their request shape remains valid. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI assisted with this change. The runner did not expose the exact model ID or context window. The agent used code execution and repository tools. ## 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; exact model ID and context window were not exposed) - [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 (focused tests; full suite is pending CI) - [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 (53 pass, 4 skip on the latest head) - [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
|
b17019e14d |
fix(agents): reduce default instructions and qualify stock harnesses (#14948)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its adapters supply task context and access to Paperclip skills and tools. > - The default hire manual and shared prompts also repeat general work procedures. > - Those procedures overlap with stock provider instructions and the Paperclip skill. > - Existing E2E fixtures supply a QA manual, so they do not qualify the production default. > - This pull request reduces the generic instructions and adds real default-hire coverage. > - The benefit is less competing guidance, with inspectable evidence for preserved skills and task context. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #14920. That merged change preserves native Codex base instructions. This PR covers the default manual, shared legacy prompts, operational skill guidance, and the narrowly approved ACP skill-discovery/session-environment repair for measured delivery and credential-persistence failures. **What existing behavior does this improve?** New non-CEO hires without a custom bundle and legacy task/chat startup and continuation prompts. **Current behavior** The shipped default manual contains 602 words. Generic task/chat prompts and ordinary resume deltas repeat work procedures already available through the harness and Paperclip skill. **Proposed behavior** The default manual contains only the eight-word company identity. Shared startup prompts retain identity and connection guidance. Ordinary resume deltas retain current work context without the generic execution contract. **Reason and benefit** Let the stock harness guide general work. Keep Paperclip-specific capabilities and independently test default hires, skills, ordered comments, and chat restart. **Breaking changes** New default hires receive less guidance. Existing saved manuals, explicit custom bundles, CEO templates, and specialized wake contracts retain their behavior. The obsolete includeExecutionContract option remains accepted for source compatibility. ## What Changed - Reduce the default hire manual to one sentence. - Reduce shared task/chat defaults and remove the generic ordinary-resume contract. - Keep connection guidance, auth, skills, custom prompts, and specialized wake context. - Add credential-free instruction-boundary gates and 26 explicit Product E2E cells across eight legacy/native profiles, including two focused Paperclip-storage cases. - Capture public hire receipts before providers run, then grade delivered prompts and independent task/chat outcomes. - Add an early legacy skill API recipe for saving a task document, checking the saved revision receipt and linking the document. Improve stock task/heartbeat skill-selection metadata and show a clickable Markdown UI-link example. Keep native tool completion separate. - Advertise bounded routing descriptions and exact successfully staged SKILL.md paths in legacy ACP Claude; keep full bodies on demand and preserve remote path rebasing. - Remove only the provider environment from copied persisted ACP session records, while loading current run credentials and preserving all other options/conversation state. - Regenerate both capability metadata inventories and reject stale manifests/inventories before provider admission. - Publish the original reduction and focused skill-repair comparisons, preserving all failures, automatic recovery, cost coverage and limitations. ## Verification **Behavioral qualification remains pending.** Original legacy ACP Claude loses the issue document only in the reduced cohort beneath an unchanged credential failure. A source-backed diagnosis finds that neither ordinary assignment reads the staged operational skill, while the runtime persists provider environment in session state. The new common repairs expose skill metadata/path and omit persisted env; strict document and credential guards stay intact. [Inspectable diagnosis and retained hashes](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/9f654db4541d3d002769c988f6e51fc0b08dadbd/doc/plans/2026-10-03-legacy-acp-claude-readiness.md). Current repair head `de0965984ff3edf611ae6d0e7ca5c7d5ae3947bb` incorporates master `569c7203aa24b95440682983ce7940ba1d4247bd` (merged #14961/#15007). All 222 affected adapter tests, adapter-utils/E2E typechecks, and final 96 variant/grader/retry calibrations pass. The frozen historical comparator is `c25697f4260b6f3adfea143c3ae9932e2f42986d`: 8,280 of 8,291 paths identical, exactly two production instruction paths plus nine declared unit expectations differ. The operational skill/discovery/environment repairs, selected model/profile/task/core grader/auth/permissions/retry policy are identical. Both actual launcher prepare→verify admissions pass with zero providers. [Immutable manifest and exact receipts](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/9f654db4541d3d002769c988f6e51fc0b08dadbd/doc/plans/2026-10-03-legacy-acp-claude-evidence/manifest.json). One original legacy ACP Claude cell per variant is authorized, with enforced single campaign attempts, 12-minute deadlines and company/agent 1,000-cent hard stops; every product recovery run/cost is counted. Actual live outcomes are pending. Current normal CI has one failed server shard and failed aggregate verify under diagnosis; other normal gates including typecheck/build/Rust/all eight browser shards pass. Fresh review completed successfully; the valid historical startup/resume masking finding was fixed with per-invocation task/chat checks and strict complete-snapshot capture, calibrated and resolved. Prior heads, failures and campaigns below remain historical evidence, not checks on this repair head. - Prior head `36aa4d81c49a1a8f6f04b1a068fae19aa901955f` is replayed on merged hiring master `862a5758ba0e88a33232c1f1fa645e85c38a3113`. All 52 current-head checks pass with two intentional Storybook skips, including repository typecheck/test/build and the browser shard. Fresh Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved review threads. Exact-head stock prerequisites pass 599 assertions (598 TypeScript + 1 Rust), all six gates and retained receipt verification, zero providers/source errors. Fingerprint `a7f5a22d860a88fe20cce213c6d5e0004788f32c8363930729aea4fd740ad16d`. Combined catalog/hiring calibrations pass 67 assertions, E2E typecheck and 26-cell stock discovery pass. Canonical contract/inventory checks and the later issue-derived reference calibration are retained; that reference-only follow-up is not live-qualified by earlier frozen runs. - Prior full repository typecheck/build passed. The complete local Vitest run executed 14,956 tests: 14,870 passed, 83 skipped, three timing failures. All three affected files passed unchanged narrow reruns; original failures remain retained. Current-head CI now passes the full general checks; the original local failures remain retained. - The original 24-pair default-manual/shared-prompt comparison has two new overall classic Claude/OpenCode document-delivery failures plus an additional legacy ACP Claude document loss beneath an unchanged credential-guard failure (not closed by later runs), two newly passing OpenCode ordered cases, seven unchanged failures and 13 unchanged passes. Equal 15/24 totals do not establish behavioral equivalence. [Complete original report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/875f4c397d9e8c3f12f39dedd59abaf1eaf5236e/doc/plans/2026-10-02-stock-harness-live-comparison.md). - The skill-only repair holds the eight-word manual/shared prompts and merged #14920 fixed. All four matched profile configurations and 203 fixture/behavior files match. Candidate `abd0b628ca642c09a54a4edc56a5227402f6686e` varies only the two skill sources against baseline `bc83fe030234439ac51279502a28803958963e2e`. [Candidate workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37060885547) and [baseline workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37060888047) each pass 571 exact-source prerequisites before providers; all eight cells clean up successfully. Failed campaigns publish successfully and remain failed. - Repair pairs: Claude original Fail → Pass; Claude explicit Pass → Pass; both OpenCode cases Fail → Fail. Explicit OpenCode's handoff worsens beneath the unchanged failing UI-link grade: baseline gives a clickable API URL, candidate gives a code-formatted path without an anchor. The request's usable-link wording is narrower in the UI-only oracle. [Complete repair report and safe projection](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/875f4c397d9e8c3f12f39dedd59abaf1eaf5236e/doc/plans/2026-10-02-legacy-document-skill-repair.md). - The subsequent narrow stock metadata/link correction has two matched Pass → Pass cases, zero new machine failures/passes and no pending pairs. Both original-case handoff links remain deficient: candidate uses a wrong PAP prefix, baseline supplies a bare prefix-less slug path; the preserved original oracle only requires a durable document. Both explicit clickable UI-link cases pass revision/content/link grading. All four exact-source 587-check gates, single assignment runs and cleanup pass. This does not establish fix causality because baseline also succeeds. [Candidate workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37069547401) freezes `fe9dc1e3c518825242ed889ab9c8352986f8c2ed`; [matched baseline](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37069552374) freezes `0d7ecfa96d72fba79b7f0a25052b42c0686c0488`. This is a skill-only comparison with reduced manuals/shared prompts held constant, not a repeat of the historical-manual comparison. Only original and clarified explicit classic OpenCode cases are selected, two per variant/four expected turns. 8,242 other tracked files and both profile hashes match; protected workflows admit each exact source before credentials. [Complete qualification report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/74d0d3d945f4c52d0814b5a845ab5bd09f33cd6b/doc/plans/2026-10-02-opencode-skill-routing-link-qualification.md). Candidate original loads Paperclip/reference before saving publicly; baseline original loads it after writing locally, then saves publicly within the same assignment. Reported cost totals are $0.0107824490 candidate / $0.0107909015 baseline, with unmetered runtime. The later reference-only issue-derived link correction is provider-free calibrated and **not live-qualified** by these frozen runs; no further paid runs. - Retained tool calls show the repaired original OpenCode assignment loads only its assigned output skill before writing locally. Operational Paperclip is first loaded during automatic disposition recovery; its early recipe is visible then, but it never saves the missing document. Explicit candidate loads Paperclip and reads the new reference before saving successfully. All nine actual runs are counted. Reported LLM totals are $0.3802537209 baseline and $0.4918990161 candidate; local runtime is unmetered. - Initial setup, packaging, cancelled/missing-cell recovery, callback test and relative-output attempts remain retained. No completed provider failure was rerun. Frozen measurement branches are unchanged by later canonical metadata maintenance. - Run `pnpm test:e2e:runner:stock-harness`, `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit`, and `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck`. Select `stock-harness` explicitly for paid execution; it is excluded from `--all`. Prior-head integration: `36aa4d81c49a1a8f6f04b1a068fae19aa901955f` replays this PR on merged hiring #14985 (`862a5758ba0e88a33232c1f1fa645e85c38a3113`), preserving the four explicit custom-CEO-bundle checks, minimal generic manual boundary, and both suites. The combined fixture catalog and hiring calibrations pass 67 assertions; exact-head stock prerequisites pass 599 assertions (598 TypeScript + 1 Rust), all six gates and retained-receipt verification, zero providers/source errors, fingerprint `a7f5a22d860a88fe20cce213c6d5e0004788f32c8363930729aea4fd740ad16d`. E2E typecheck and 26-cell stock discovery pass. Fresh current-head CI passes all 52 checks with two intentional skips, and fresh Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved review threads. The prior source-plan browser failure is retained: a deterministic process fixture replayed its last `fixture:plan` command on `chat_task_completed`, writing revision 2 with identical body after the approval handoff. This was not paid provider execution. Rebased current-head CI passes the same assertion without an old-head retry or a change to that browser fixture. The merged hiring change was measured separately on immutable matched unions, with this reduced/shared/operational context and native completion guidance held constant. [Complete original two-profile report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/f0512647656be78e48abd8c22a3078db8bf6bcd2/doc/plans/2026-10-02-hiring-template-live-comparison.md): [candidate](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37075466208) / [historical baseline](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37075469463), 705 provider-free prerequisites each. Both pairs are unchanged Fail → Fail on the exact-five count, with six core delivery checks passing all four cells; 28 actual successful runs include eight automatic completion wakes, zero retries, four successful cleanups. Source-read coverage is uncomparable, actual model charges unknown. Separately versioned provider-free accounting remains analytical work; original verdicts are preserved. This does not rerun or qualify the completed default-manual or native campaigns. ## Risks - Legacy ACP Claude's additional delivery loss is not closed by any later matched run and blocks the no-extra-failing-behavior merge criterion. Legacy document delivery may have relied on the prior manual/shared prompts. The early skill repair improves Claude in one trial; the later OpenCode pairs pass in both variants and cannot establish causality or robust recovery. Both original-case links remain deficient beneath the storage-only grade. The later issue-derived reference correction has only provider-free validation. Native finish/block descriptions must not be supplied to legacy agents. - The comparison holds merged native Codex fix #14920 constant; it cannot measure that fix's before/after task performance. - These bounded skill/context/chat workflows do not measure general coding quality. Unrepresented providers remain unqualified. - Saved manuals and old Codex sessions are not automatically migrated. Codex through ACP still has a separate base-instruction follow-up. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family as identified by this session. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed. The assistant used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and delegated PR/eval work. ## 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 (relevant suites and all three unchanged narrow reruns pass; complete-run timing failures retained in Verification) - [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 on the new repair head (prior-head checks retained above) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on the new repair head - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.1003.0-canary.8 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
569c7203aa |
fix(ui): use latest issue runtime callbacks (#14863)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their work. > - The issue page uses an external-store adapter for comments. > - The adapter must keep one identity during an unrelated render. > - The adapter must also call the newest send and cancel functions. > - Passive effects update those functions too late for a synchronous runtime call. > - This pull request updates the function refs during render and adds a regression test. > - The benefit is a stable comment thread with no stale comment action. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #3678 **What happened?** The issue comment runtime can call the prior send function after a render. The callback refs do not update until passive effects run. **Expected behavior** The stable runtime adapter must call the newest function as soon as the render supplies it. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Render the issue runtime with one send function. 2. Render it again with a new send function and the same thread data. 3. Call the stable adapter before passive effects run. 4. Observe that the prior send function runs. **Paperclip version or commit** `6395cae072` **Deployment mode** Local development from source. **Agent adapter(s) involved** This is a core UI bug. It is not adapter-specific. ## What Changed - Update the latest send and cancel refs during render. - Keep the external-store adapter stable across callback-only renders. - Add a test for a runtime callback before passive effects run. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/hooks/usePaperclipIssueRuntime.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - Low risk. The change only updates two refs earlier in the same render. - The adapter identity and its data dependencies do not change. > This bug fix does not add or overlap with a roadmap feature. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The exact deployed model ID and context window are not exposed. Reasoning, tool use, and local code execution were enabled. ## 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>canary/v2026.1003.0-canary.7 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
78e0034498 |
fix(evals): account for hiring completion notifications (#15007)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Product E2E evals check real hiring and delegated task completion. > - The hiring fixture requires three requested CEO turns and two coder executions. > - The server can also wake the CEO when each delegated task completes. > - Two exact-five-run guards rejected these valid completion turns in all four retained cells. > - This pull request validates bounded completion turns in both guards. > - The benefit is accurate workflow grading while all actual runs and coverage failures remain visible. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #14985, #14948, #14961. **What happened?** The original hiring comparison reports Codex Fail → Fail and Claude Fail → Fail. Each cell has seven successful runs. The five requested work turns are accompanied by two server task-completion notifications. All six other delivery checks pass. **Expected behavior** Require exactly three distinct user-requested CEO turns and one coder execution for each of two known tasks. Admit at most two strictly attributed server completion turns, including one turn that batches both tasks. Reject unknown, duplicate, failed, retried or extra-work runs. **Steps to reproduce** Inspect the retained four-cell report linked below. Each original result fails `five-successful-turns`. The same exact count was also enforced by the final chat-flow guard. ## What Changed - Add one typed lifecycle helper shared by the hiring scorer and the hiring-only final chat guard. - Validate public run ledgers, company/user/account identity, request attribution, task origins, completion deliveries, timing and replies. - Keep exactly five required work turns; declare seven maximum total turns for cost and timeout planning. - Count all actual runs, including notification runs and unexpected resets. Keep other chat count guards unchanged. - Version the hiring grader as v3 (turn accounting v2) and include the helper and chat guard in its definition digest. - Keep source-read, exact coder-body and all six other delivery checks unchanged. - Add 144 focused helper/scorer/settlement calibrations and separately versioned exact retained-input replay reports. - Retry complete bracketed observations, await both owed callbacks and attributed replies, and refresh the final guard consistently. - Reject unrelated completion writes and failed mutation attempts using exact canonical/native action IDs. Missing identity mapping is uncomparable action coverage. ## Verification - All 977 credential-free E2E support tests pass across 64 files, including 144 focused lifecycle/action/scorer/settlement calibrations. - E2E typecheck, ordinary plugin SDK and Runner TypeScript dependency builds, capability contract/inventory checks and the existing two-cell hiring discovery pass. - [Executable replay report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/fed1729018cc100f5f4bbfb692777e49009c423b/doc/plans/2026-10-02-hiring-executable-accounting-replay.md) pins current code revision `e4077ade1818d98b9862ae79ee1d49a007dcf9c1`, v3 definition digest, exact source/input hashes and each original/new check. - The stricter replay verifies both Codex variants through both executable guards. ACPX Claude action attribution remains unresolved/uncomparable because provider execution IDs cannot be exactly joined to native request IDs; guards fail closed. No notification writes are observed. All six other outcomes and every original source/template coverage check stay unchanged. Original files and Fail → Fail machine verdicts remain preserved; zero providers are called. - Full attempts remain uncomparable in both profiles. Historical Claude also keeps its six-backtick exact-template mismatch. This grading repair does not prove model-performance equivalence. - The limited sidecar-v1 and initial executable-v2 passes checked notification-created tasks but could miss unrelated document writes. Those assessments remain preserved and do not prove harmless notifications. The stricter v3 replay is separate. - [Original measurement and separate sidecar](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/8eb517ca1497687237163bdef4dfc4d3332ea916/doc/plans/2026-10-02-hiring-template-live-comparison.md) retain 28 actual runs, eight automatic notifications, four successful cleanups and unknown actual model charges. No models are rerun. - The branch is replayed on master `59c07ede7`. Intervening master changes are UI-only; eval source bytes and replay verdicts match. The four-cell provider-free replay was repeated against the reachable code revision. - Initial-head normal CI retained browser failures in agent-run denial feedback and touch-picker scroll position. Those browser paths and imports were unchanged, but their cause was not established. The necessary review-fix head passes both browser checks; no blind rerun was requested. - Local full repository typecheck/test/build were not repeated. Exact-head normal CI passes the required repository gates, including typecheck, tests, build and browser shards. Fresh Greptile review completed on `fed1729018cc100f5f4bbfb692777e49009c423b` with 5/5 and zero unresolved threads. An independent rerun of the 144 focused helper/scorer/settlement tests passes on the unchanged head. **Merge readiness:** This PR repairs the evaluator. Its positive and negative calibrations pass, both guards reject missing action attribution, current-head CI and review pass, and there are no merge conflicts. The retained ACPX cells remain uncomparable because their action IDs cannot be joined. That coverage limit remains a separate follow-up; it does not require relaxing this grader or changing the old results. No model calls, production instructions, carrier changes, or historical regrades are part of this readiness update. ## Risks - Missing or inconsistent public lifecycle evidence fails the bounded helper. The focused calibrations reject plausible false positives and malformed observations. Unmatched action IDs fail closed and are reported as uncomparable rather than a model task regression. - Source-read evidence remains incomplete. This PR does not change provider event carriers or relax the coverage oracle. - The versioned count check differs from original v1 results. Reports retain both versions and exact input hashes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family as identified by this session. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed. The assistant used reasoning, repository tools, code execution and delegated calibration work. ## 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 normal CI gates are green (exact head `fed1729018cc100f5f4bbfb692777e49009c423b`; fresh review tracked separately below) - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (completed exact-head review; zero unresolved threads) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
dd868ed125 |
fix(runner): share native completion tool guidance (#14961)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Native Runner agents report completion through finish and block tools. > - The providers receive different descriptions for those tools. > - Completion guidance belongs with the tools that enforce the result. > - This pull request shares the descriptions and refreshes retained catalogs. > - A separate native suite checks completion and blocking on production defaults. > - Legacy agents retain their separate skill and API paths. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #14920, #14948, #14985. **Current behavior** Native Codex and MCP bridges describe finish and block differently. Retained provider sessions can keep old descriptions. **Proposed behavior** Native providers receive the same finish and block descriptions. The descriptions cover report selection, validation feedback, returned outcomes, approval gates and final-answer timing. Retained native sessions refresh from v13 to v14. **Reason and benefit** Put the completion procedure next to its native tool. Preserve stock base instructions, schemas, permissions and terminal semantics. This PR now stands alone on master. It contains no reduced manual, shared prompt or operational-skill changes from #14948. ## What Changed - Add canonical native finish and block descriptions. Use them in direct Codex and both native MCP bridges. - Advance the native tool contract to v14. Cover old-v13 refresh without replacing task identity or prior history. - Check authenticated tool catalogs, provider start/resume frames and serialized daemon catalogs. - Add an independent, explicit-only native completion suite. Preserve the original assigned-skill durable-document journey. Pair it with a concrete whole-task blocker across Codex, ACPX Claude and OpenCode. - Verify the actual public production default bundle and budgets before execution. Require independent durable disposition, native result/terminal receipts and observable provider-final ordering. - Correct the blocker browser oracle to accept the requested explanation. Keep exact owner/action/scope checks. Calibrate positive, missing and contradictory replies. - Preserve only actual `tool_call` terminal names (`paperclip_finish` / `paperclip_block`) in the native compatibility run-log projection. Require the same named call ID through its finishing result; retain all other redaction boundaries. - Admit verified hosted shallow checkout/build hydration and bind the selected runnerd to exact source/archive/binary provenance. Hosted cells truthfully reuse the existing trusted build; local admission executes Rust calibration. Forward only public source/run identifiers through both launcher preflight subprocess paths. - Enforce single attempts in the launcher for opted-in fixtures. Keep ordinary retry policy unchanged. Run exact-source, credential-free admission before credential loading. ## Verification - Frozen candidate: `d6e59e4712a3158ab4cd7d58deff1389b4578c21`, based on master `59c07ede72dc08b8aba149a01cc11e0b7a204621`; historical descriptions: `e74ed61a69fbdd8b3a8f15dd6456bc3140246e33`. Exactly the five original native production files and six unit tests differ. Both carry identical corrected fixtures, strict named finishing-call grader, closed compatibility carrier and admission. Defaults, profiles/models/auth/permissions and manifest bytes match. - Actual launcher `prepareNativeCompletionPreflight` → `verifyNativeCompletionPreflight` admission passes on both exact refs with zero providers: candidate 132 / historical 127 selected TypeScript assertions, 128 Node calibrations and one Rust normalization calibration each; E2E typecheck, manifest checks, selected binary provenance and six-cell discovery pass. Each has 257 explicitly skipped unrelated assertions, not coverage. The credential-free environment calibration exercises both real prepare/verify subprocess options with public hosted identifiers and rejects credential/ambient overrides. Complete actual launcher prepare→verify also passes on both frozen refs with explicitly synthetic hosted metadata/verified archives, separately labeled as calibration rather than a trusted GitHub run. Exact framed provenance parsing and mock source identity are calibrated without relaxing the real verifier. - [Complete matched qualification report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/532066620b88e8731a5211fbe1cbc48ce8c7dd1a/doc/plans/2026-10-02-native-completion-master-qualification.md), [immutable manifest](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/532066620b88e8731a5211fbe1cbc48ce8c7dd1a/doc/plans/2026-10-02-native-completion-calibrated-manifest.json) and [closed retained audit/hashes](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/532066620b88e8731a5211fbe1cbc48ce8c7dd1a/doc/plans/2026-10-02-native-completion-calibrated-results/comparison.json) are inspectable. All six candidate cells pass; historical descriptions pass five. Paired outcomes: **zero new failures, one new pass (Codex blocker), five unchanged passes, zero pending pairs**. [Candidate campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37098728980) and [historical campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37098815696) each execute six original attempt-1 native runs, with no campaign retry and successful cleanup. Their trusted workflow revision is `215586d127e97c9301d86e769a39a15c13298ca2`, separate from measured source. [Candidate public HTML](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-37098728980-1/index.html) and [historical public HTML](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-37098815696-1/index.html) retain declared screenshots. - Independent candidate evidence agrees with all original grades: 51 strict native checks, 12 served-default/budget checks and 21 original skill/document checks pass. The historical Codex blocker saves the correct whole-task blocker but omits the required marker from its actual provider final and identical saved reply. This is not semantic-summary fallback. Its original browser/matcher failure stays retained; the additional native snapshot/grade and workspace before/after digest were never written and are not fabricated by the separate API/PRP audit. Historical Codex completion has one failed finish followed by success within the same native run; the public receipt records no failure reason. All twelve runs and their usage remain counted. Reported model-cost subtotals are $0.00421482 historical/$0.00437391 candidate; Codex/Claude zero entries have unknown billing type, actual invoices are unverified and hosted execution cost is unmetered. One matched trial supports no extra failure within these six cases, not broad statistical or coding-quality equivalence. - Initial hosted `e18c2cf9` / `459455ac` and subsequent `0a9c5a7` / `00a761b` cohorts each stopped before providers in all twelve cells. The latter failed a mocked-receipt unit test under ambient hosted metadata; all source/build proofs passed. [All twelve later setup receipts](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/402ee94c52273ad58de355ae9a7d562dd22f8101/doc/plans/2026-10-02-native-completion-qualified-hosted-setup.json) are retained. [Exact failed setup receipts](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/27653eb1a8f8ce839776d760f4563f672e5a706c/doc/plans/2026-10-02-native-completion-master-hosted-setup.json) and the original manifest remain intact. Local sandbox-denied loopback and stale anchor-expectation attempts are retained separately; unchanged appropriate assertions were corrected/admitted before paid dispatch. Old anonymous OpenCode streams are not assigned inferred tool names or retroactively passed. - Full provider-free E2E support previously passed 927 tests in 67 files. Exact-head d6 normal CI run `37098409915`, attempt 1 passes full repository typecheck/build/tests, Runner Rust/static checks, all browser shards/aggregate and canary: 52 check-runs pass, four intentional skips, Snyk passes. Fresh Greptile check `111132956342` is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. Source-specific deterministic tests do not substitute for the bounded live comparison. - Earlier native source `9138f570c341c251a5727c32d6615ce238bc8e03` is archived. Its [complete reduced-manual-context report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/9138f570c341c251a5727c32d6615ce238bc8e03/doc/plans/2026-10-02-native-completion-live-comparison.md) remains intact, including original failures, grader limits and provider-free replay. It is not current-master-context qualification. ## Risks Changed tool text can change model behavior. The completed six-pair qualification shows no extra failing outcomes in this bounded trial; other tasks and repeated-run variance remain unmeasured. Observable final ordering does not prove provider feedback consumption. Public evidence can fail closed if a provider does not expose the required result sequence. This slice does not remove native fixed prompts or measure general coding quality. No database, schema, permission or legacy completion changes occur. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with code inspection, execution and tool use. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. They are unavailable rather than inferred from the model menu. ## 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>canary/v2026.1003.0-canary.6 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ffe5e9e2a8 |
fix: retain execution evidence for Retry and saved input (#15033)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people steer and recover AI-agent conversations. > - Recovery eligibility depends on retained cancellation receipts. > - Run presentation intentionally omits result JSON on SQL_ASCII databases and reduces oversized output. > - Retry and the saved-input sweep mistakenly used that presentation read for admission. > - The banner could offer Retry while the endpoint rejected the same stopped run. > - Read the narrow execution-evidence fields for internal admission and keep normal presentation unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15024 and #15015. Searched existing recovery and redaction PRs; no duplicate fix found. **What happened?** On a SQL_ASCII instance, a verified pre-dispatch review-wait cancellation offers Retry in the recovery notice. Clicking it returns an eligibility conflict, and a saved user message remains deferred. The notice reads the retained database receipt, but the endpoint and sweep read a presentation projection where `resultJson` is null. **Expected behavior** Retry and saved user input use the recorded execution evidence and ordinary admission gates, independent of presentation redaction. Public run reads retain their existing encoding and output-size protections. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Record a cancelled, unclaimed review-wait continuation and its recovery hold. 2. Use the SQL_ASCII presentation projection, where run result JSON is omitted. 3. Click Retry or save a new user message and let the recovery sweep inspect it. 4. Verify a fresh turn starts once, with no replay of consumed input. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `9ae3d8db3`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated private self-hosted server with a SQL_ASCII database. ## What Changed - Add an explicit internal read of cancellation, startup, review-wait, tool-inventory, and Stop evidence; omit provider diagnostics. - Use that read in the Retry route, wakeup validation, and saved-input continuation checks. - Preserve the distinction between absent result JSON and an unrecognized stored result. - Cover the reproduced SQL_ASCII Retry and saved-input failures, retained public redaction, native Stop behavior, and excluded provider output. - Document the presentation and admission distinction. ## Verification - Red: four selected assertions fail before the fix, including the SQL_ASCII eligibility conflict and saved input remaining deferred. - Targeted green regressions and existing native Stop cases pass. - Workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. - All 626 affected recovery, continuation, and route tests pass, including 22 focused admission and native Stop cases. Current-head CI has 54 passing gates and 2 skipped optional Storybook checks. Greptile reviewed `9b94af91e295a4e8007dfc6bff6a8d532d945e36` at 5/5 with no findings or open review threads. No complete local monolithic pass is claimed; the complete suite runs in sharded CI. ## Risks Admission still checks recorded process and controller ownership, provider events, cleanup, company scope, user authority, pending decisions, and task holds. The evidence projection must retain every field used by these eligibility predicates; existing native Stop cases guard against dropping its acknowledgement receipt. No schema, dependency, UI, or public response change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, an agent based on GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser 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>nightly/v2026.1003.0-nightly.0 canary/v2026.1003.0-canary.5 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9ae3d8db3d |
fix: keep pre-dispatch review waits out of execution recovery (#15024)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The queued-run gate can cancel a continuation that must wait for review. > - This cancellation happens before execution authority or a provider starts. > - Recovery currently treats the gate receipt as unknown provider execution. > - That mistake blocks a conversation after a successful reply and hides Retry. > - This pull request recognizes only the recorded, unclaimed review-wait state. > - Review waits keep their normal disposition path, and new user input can recover older false holds. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15015, #15020, and #15022. Related #11614 narrows the review posture that causes cancellation; this change corrects recovery after a valid cancellation. **What happened?** After a successful agent reply, the queued-run gate cancelled an automatic continuation with `issue_continuation_waiting_on_review`. The gate retained `timeoutSource: stale_queued_run_gate` and a matching stop reason. No execution authority or provider started. Recovery still created an unknown-action hold, moved the task to Blocked, and hid Retry. **Expected behavior** Use normal review-wait disposition repair for this recorded state. Allow Retry, a new user message, or saved undelivered input to recover an older false hold after ordinary admission checks pass. Preserve the cancelled run and do not replay its input. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Finish an agent turn on an open task that has a real review target. 2. Let the automatic continuation reach the queued-run review gate. 3. Refresh after the cancelled run is checked by recovery. 4. Confirm a review wait is handled as a wait rather than unknown provider work. 5. Reproduce an older false hold for the same receipt, then request Retry or send a new message. 6. Confirm only one fresh turn starts, and contradictory execution or cleanup evidence retains the hold. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `215586d127`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated private self-hosted server, built from source. ## What Changed - Recognize the exact review-wait dispatch receipt only while all execution claims remain unset. - Exempt recovery only after checking retained launch and provider events, coordinators, and environment cleanup. Keep the synchronous classifier conservative without that database proof. - Apply the verified classification to automatic recovery, heartbeat retries, and stranded-queue release, so saved user input starts once. - Reuse guarded startup admission for Retry, new input, and saved input on older false holds. - Show a precise review-wait notice and keep continuation guidance consistent with Retry availability. - Verify provider events, launch events, coordinators, and cleanup before admission. - Add five initial red regressions, three additional red recovery evidence regressions, concurrent saved-input coverage, and negative evidence checks. - Document the review-wait contract. ## Verification - Red: five regressions fail on unchanged master. Existing review-wait and contradictory-evidence cases still pass. - Workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - All 752 affected recovery, continuation, queue, classification, and retry-scheduling tests pass. - Three additional review regressions failed before the database proof was added; all 12 focused review-wait cases then pass. - Workspace `pnpm build` passes. - Saved-input promotion and recovery notice regressions fail before their fixes and pass afterward. - Current-head CI has 54 passing checks and 2 skipped optional Storybook checks. Greptile reviewed `0bf1437110e1617ae4544afa41f4319eac763dba` at 5/5 with zero open findings. The complete suite runs in sharded CI. No complete local monolithic pass is claimed; an earlier long run was stopped, and its unrelated failing case passed in isolation. ## Risks The error code alone cannot establish that no provider started. This exception also requires the server gate receipt, matching stop reason, and null execution authority fields. User admission separately checks coordinator, launch and provider events, environment cleanup, pending decisions, ownership, task holds, budget, and active execution. No migration or dependency change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, an agent based on GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser 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>canary/v2026.1003.0-canary.4 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
215586d127 |
fix: settle interrupted preparation with a retained cancellation fence (#15022)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A cancelled preparation must preserve history while allowing a new user turn. > - Older preparation can retain its cancellation fence but omit the unwind marker. > - The controller from that older boot is gone, its lease expired, and no provider started. > - Use the same narrow preparation proof for this retained-fence state. > - The benefit is working Retry and saved-message recovery after interrupted startup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15020 and #15015. Related #13293 addresses post-launch recovery. **What happened?** A preparation interrupted before native selection retained `startupCancellation.beforeNativeSelection: true` but no preparation-settled marker. Its owner expired across restart and it had no environment leases. The missing-receipt compatibility rule did not recognize the retained fence, leaving Retry absent and saved messages deferred. **Expected behavior** Admit one new user turn when the preparation evidence agrees, the old controller expired, and cleanup is complete. Preserve previous results and do not replay the cancelled input. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Cancel Paperclip Runner preparation before runtime selection. 2. Retain the cancellation fence without an unwind marker or environment leases. 3. Restart after its old controller lease expires. 4. Send a new message, select Retry, or allow the saved-message worker to reconsider new input. 5. Confirm one successor receives only undelivered input. Repeat with live ownership, invocation evidence, or pending cleanup and confirm execution stays held. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `94f6f3eb4`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated private self-hosted server, built from source. ## What Changed - Accept a retained before-selection cancellation fence in the expired historical preparation proof. - Retain runtime, stage, adapter, ownership expiry, process, event, and cleanup requirements. - Extend Retry, fresh-message, partial-queue, concurrent-worker, and contradictory-evidence tests to both receipt states. - Document recovery when the preparation-settled marker was not retained. ## Verification - Red: five exact-state regressions fail on the parent commit. - Green: all 203 continuation tests pass, including the five new regressions and 13 additional negative evidence cases. Process recovery and queued-comment routes add 413 passing tests. - A read-only candidate service check against the retained live run returns Retry eligibility without changing any task state. - An unrelated containment assertion failed once in CI. All 85 tests in that route suite pass locally and the CI shard passes on rerun. - Workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. - Final head `48240de3d`: all 54 CI checks pass, two optional Storybook checks skip, and Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. The complete local monolithic suite is covered by sharded CI; the earlier local run was stopped after a workspace case failed, and that case passed in isolation. - After merge, deploy the exact merged commit and verify an actual agent reply through the task composer. ## Risks A cancellation receipt alone must not certify that provider execution stopped. This path still requires unresolved preparation, no native identity or coordinator, an expired controller from another boot, no launch or provider evidence, and completed environment cleanup. Current-boot preparation remains held until it settles. No schema or dependency change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, an agent based on GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser 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>canary/v2026.1003.0-canary.3 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
94f6f3eb47 |
fix: recover historical interrupted native preparation (#15020)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A task conversation must accept new user input after an interrupted startup. > - Native startup begins with a legacy preparation row before runtime selection. > - Older builds did not retain the startup cancellation receipt on that row. > - The immutable adapter claim and expired controller can still prove that no provider started. > - This pull request uses that narrow proof for explicit Retry and saved user input. > - The benefit is a conversation that recovers after an upgrade without repeating old work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15015. Related #13293 covers retained process evidence after provider startup. This change covers interrupted preparation before native runtime selection. **What happened?** After an upgrade, a task stopped during native preparation can still show automatic recovery stopped. A new user message saves but does not start. Retry is absent because the historical run has no cancellation receipt. **Expected behavior** Offer Retry and admit new user input when immutable run evidence proves that no provider started and cleanup is complete. Preserve incomplete or contradictory evidence as a recovery hold. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Retain a cancelled run with the Paperclip Runner adapter claim, an unresolved runtime, and the preparing stage. 2. Keep its old controller boot ID and expired lease. Retain no native identity, coordinator, result, process identity, or provider events. 3. Upgrade from a build that did not save the startup cancellation receipt. 4. Send a new user message or select Retry. Confirm that one fresh turn starts. 5. Repeat with an active controller, a provider launch, or unfinished cleanup. Confirm that execution stays held. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `cc67d4e1d` with a historical interrupted preparation row. **Deployment mode** Authenticated private self-hosted server, built from source. ## What Changed - Recognize historical interrupted native preparation from immutable run evidence and an expired controller from another server boot. - Reject adapter invocation evidence in the startup proof. Keep process and environment cleanup checks. - Apply the same proof to saved user messages in the bounded recovery worker. - Recheck saved-message eligibility under the existing task and run locks. Keep normal ownership, decision, pause, and budget gates. - Add regression tests for Retry, a new message, concurrent saved-message recovery, and contradictory evidence. Document the compatibility rule. ## Verification - Red: Retry, new-message recovery, and saved-message recovery fail on the parent commit. - Green: 185 continuation tests, 335 process-recovery tests, and 78 queued-comment route tests pass. Two additional red regressions cover partially delivered saved queues and pass after the admission fix. - Workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. - Final head `48db53f4f`: all 54 CI checks pass; two optional Storybook checks skip. Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. - The local monolithic `pnpm test:run` was stopped after CI passed. One unrelated workspace case failed in that long run; all three workspace reconciliation cases pass in isolation. No complete local monolithic pass is claimed. - After merge, deploy the exact merged commit and verify recovery through the normal task composer. ## Risks Historical compatibility could grant a new turn without enough startup evidence. The proof requires an immutable native adapter claim, an unresolved preparing stage, no result or native identity, an expired controller from another server boot, and no invocation or provider evidence. Environment cleanup remains mandatory. The fix does not replay old input or change historical run results. No schema or dependency change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, an agent based on GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser 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>canary/v2026.1003.0-canary.2 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
cc67d4e1d8 |
fix: preserve steering and recover stopped task conversations (#15015)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A task conversation must let a user guide a running agent and resume stopped work. > - The active run owns its input protocol, even when the user changes the next model or effort. > - Queue delivery waits for a provider receipt, which must be able to persist during the request. > - A stopped startup also needs a clear user action that passes normal task admission. > - This pull request fixes steering delivery, makes queue actions immediate, and restores explicit continuation. > - The benefit is a responsive conversation that can recover without losing saved input. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A queued message could change from Steer to Interrupt while a native run prepared. A steer request could wait on its own database lock and fail to deliver. A stopped startup could then leave the conversation without a working Retry or message continuation. Interrupt also waited for the server and showed a toast. **Expected behavior** The active run keeps its input protocol. Steer delivers input to that run. Steer and Interrupt clear the submitted queue rows and show the input in the conversation immediately. Failed delivery restores the latest queue with an inline error. An eligible stopped run offers Retry, and authenticated user input can start a fresh turn through normal task admission. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a task with a native Paperclip Runner. 2. Change the selected model or effort while that run prepares. 3. Queue a message and press Steer. 4. Observe the provider receipt and queue state during the request. 5. Stop a startup before its provider process begins, then try Retry or send a new message. 6. Repeat queued delivery with a legacy runner and press Interrupt. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on the parent of this branch, `59c07ede7`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated private deployment. The fixes also cover local task conversations. Related work: Refs #12834, Refs #13354, Refs #13275. The open refactor in #13160 moves the same queue route; it does not fix the receipt lock or stopped-run continuation addressed here. ## What Changed - Select queue behavior from the active run's immutable dispatch and runtime resolution. - Leave the run row unlocked during provider acknowledgement, then lock and read it before merging the receipt. - Retain queued input if the target run stops during that wait. Keep inline delivery errors visible after empty queue updates. - Permit exact Retry and authenticated continuation after verified native startup cancellation. Preserve pause, approval, budget, ownership, and process-stop gates. - Carry undelivered native queue input into a fresh turn once the old execution is confirmed stopped. - Show Steer and Interrupt input in the conversation and clear submitted composer rows immediately. Restore the latest queue inline on failure. Remove delivery toasts. - Keep optimistic delivery stable across stale polls, empty queues, and paginated history. Preserve classic Interrupt error handling. - Document recovery and optimistic delivery behavior. Add regression tests across server, shared queue projection, and UI boundaries. ## Verification - Red-green regression tests reproduced the queue protocol, receipt lock, stopped-startup continuation, and optimistic delivery failures. - The focused server route, continuation, queue, and runner boundary suites passed during implementation. - The queue-route suite passes with 78 tests. The three complete conversation UI suites pass with 347 tests. - UI typecheck, production build, and `pnpm check:token-gates` pass. - Workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. The local monolithic `pnpm test:run` is still running; remote CI verifies the complete suite on the latest commit. - All CI gates pass on `bd9031ad56abfcde13d13a13488c1b9217c2fd3a`, including the full test shards, runner verification, browser E2E, typecheck, release registry, and canary dry run. - Greptile reports 5/5 for that commit. Both review threads are resolved. ## Risks This changes queue display and explicit continuation admission. The UI must restore rejected delivery without losing other-session edits. The server must preserve concurrent provider result updates and must not resume a process whose stop is uncertain. Focused tests cover these boundaries. This change has no database migration. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, an agent based on GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser 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>canary/v2026.1003.0-canary.1 |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
5137effc6f |
fix: integrate incremental usage checkpoints with quota reporting
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
014810c58d |
fix: checkpoint every usage update with incremental protocol parsers
Use provider terminal evidence for completeness; an OpenCode successful EOF closes its step-based stream. Preserve immutable snapshots and propagate partial completeness through final results. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
3250149305 |
fix: invalidate quota caches when personal credentials are disabled
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |