mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
8fe524f796eb80d95d4384164850ca2734f1bb97
3664
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
8fe524f796 |
fix(issues): let the board confirm an unidentified run stopped instead of an endless Retry wait (#20310)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Before a new attempt can start on a task, Paperclip must prove the previous run's agent stopped, so two agents never work the same task at once > - A local native run can be interrupted after it asked to start the runner but before it recorded the runner's process. The runner may have saved state and started a provider, and provider processes can outlive it, so the existing check (#19694) rightly refuses to assume the run stopped > - Today that case has no way out: every Retry is accepted and then waits forever as `process_identity_missing` (storage chaos ST1, t02/t03) > - This pull request makes the wait explicit and actionable. The task explains why it waits, and a board operator who has checked can confirm the run stopped; the parked Retry then starts at the click > - A second shape from the Daytona storage baseline (t06) parked a Retry with no reason at all: a follow-up was interrupted by a graceful shutdown while it was still restoring its workspace. No provider ran, but the restore hold kept the same agent held, so the Retry never started > - The benefit is that no Retry stays accepted-and-waiting with nothing anyone can do ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19831. Storage chaos wave `w-20261109T145628-s9902` (ST1), tasks t02 and t03. **What happened (CHA-3, run `3c3f6241`):** - The run requested a runner launch (`native.process_start_requested`), and a K2 restart hit before its process identity was recorded. - After the restart, the resumed attempt failed on the storage outage. The task was blocked. - The board's Retry (202) was parked as `executionWait.reason = process_identity_missing`: "The previous run has no verified stop record." - `recordUnidentifiedLocalRunnerStop` cannot prove the stop because this run's runner saved control-plane state. Once that exists, a provider may have started (#19694), and a provider is not guaranteed to carry `--run-id` or `PAPERCLIP_RUN_ID` (the Codex provider env omits it on purpose). The shared owner prover needs a PID, which the run never recorded. - Nothing could ever clear the wait. **Daytona storage baseline `w-20261109T154810-s9911`, task t06:** - The run succeeded. The follow-up was cancelled (`continuation_task_ownership_changed`), and the next run was interrupted by a graceful shutdown (`server_shutdown_interrupted`) 3 s into `preparing`. It was restoring the saved remote workspace and had launched no provider. - Restore recovery saved the files (`workspaceRecovery.status: recovered`, system recovery `complete`). But the `legacy_execution_requires_reconciliation` restore hold releases only for a different owner, or for a native Stop fenced before any provider turn, so it kept the same agent held. - The UI Retry returned 202 and parked with `executionWait.reason: execution_recovery`, the generic wait, so the task showed a Retry that never started. Automatic proof needs the runner to record its identity before saving state and to group provider processes under it. That is follow-up runner work; this PR removes the endless wait now. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/native-local-process-stop.ts`: new `confirmUnidentifiedLocalRunnerStopped`. It accepts only a finished native run of the task with no recorded process and whose latest launch evidence is an unconfirmed launch on this host in a local environment. It still refuses while a runner with `--run-id <run>` is running. It records `native.local_process_stopped` with `basis: "operator_attested"` and the attesting user. That is the receipt the existing continuation gate already accepts. - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: `POST /issues/:id/recovery-actions/confirm-run-stopped` (`runId`, `stopEvidence` of 20 to 12,000 characters). It is board-only and requires issue read plus `runtime:confirm_owner_stop`, like the other stop attestations. It logs `issue.run_stop_confirmed` with the evidence, promotes deferred intents for the issue, and resumes each parked task Retry, so work starts at the click. Refusals return 409 with a code. - `packages/shared`: `confirmRunStoppedSchema`, and the presentation user action `confirm_run_stopped`. - `server/src/services/task-interruption-presentation.ts`: a Retry parked as `process_identity_missing` for a native run that recorded no process now presents as waiting for the user (`canRetry: false`, `userAction: "confirm_run_stopped"`), with a message explaining why and who can act. A run with a recorded process keeps the existing verification wait. - UI: - `ExecutionBlockerNotice` shows the explanation and, for users who can confirm a stop, "Confirm it stopped" with a short evidence form. - It reuses `PreviousServerStopConfirmation`, now with optional `action`, explicit `runId` and `formId`, and a custom button label. - The Inbox names the action. - `server/src/services/execution-blocker.ts`: `interruptedPreparationBeforeProviderWorkCondition`. The restore hold also releases for the same agent when the stopped run was a system-interrupted preparation (legacy runtime never resolved, still `preparing`) with no process identity, no runner or provider events, no finalization or result, and every lease released with a confirmed stop. It mirrors the existing interrupted-preparation proof and still requires the completed workspace-recovery receipt. Auto-replay is unchanged; this only lets the user's Retry or message start. - Review fixes: - `unidentifiedLocalLaunchRefusal` holds the endpoint's launch, host and lease checks, and the presentation offers `confirm_run_stopped` only when it passes. - The attested stop wakes cost accounting in the same transaction. - The confirmation form is keyed by task and run. - The route is registered in OpenAPI. ## Verification Red/green (each new test fails against master and passes with this PR): - `server/src/__tests__/issue-confirm-run-stopped-routes.test.ts`: - The parked Retry presents `confirm_run_stopped` with the explanation. - Confirming records the operator-attested stop and the activity entry, satisfies the stop check, and resumes the parked Retry: its receipt is coalesced into a newly started run. - It refuses with 409 while a runner for the run is running. - Agents and viewers get 403. - `ui/src/components/ExecutionBlockerNotice.confirm-run-stopped.test.tsx`: the notice offers "Confirm it stopped" (and no dead Retry) and posts the run and evidence. A viewer sees the explanation without the action. - `server/src/__tests__/interrupted-preparation-restore-retry.test.ts` (t06 shape): - The restore hold no longer blocks. - A Retry is accepted and resumed into a started run, and the audit hold keeps `replay: blocked`. - The hold stays when a provider turn started, when a runner event was recorded, when an operator stopped the run, or when the sandbox has no stop receipt. - `issue-confirm-run-stopped-routes.test.ts`: - A case per refusal code checks the presentation keeps the generic wait and the endpoint returns 409. - An `alreadyStopped` case. - An accounting-wake assertion. - The UI test switches targets with stale evidence. Regression and static checks: - `ExecutionBlockerNotice`, `WorkspaceExportRecovery` and its control tests: 74 passed. - `tsc --noEmit` passes for `packages/shared`, `server` and `ui/src`. `pnpm check:token-gates` is clean. ## Risks - A board operator can now attest that an unidentified run stopped. The attestation is permission-gated, requires written evidence, is activity-logged, and is refused while a runner for the run is visibly running. A wrong attestation could start a second agent beside an orphaned provider, the same trust model as the existing previous-server attestations. - The confirmation component now accepts a run without a recovery action. Existing callers pass the action as before. - No schema migration. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ff2d463eed |
feat(cli): manage agent grants and keep remote login on the public origin (#20323)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip lets people control their AI agents and permissions.
> - Remote operators need a browser-approved CLI login.
> - Proxies can send that login's approval link to an internal host.
> - Human member commands cannot grant an agent an explicit permission
such as commentary:view.
> - This change keeps approval on the canonical public origin and adds
Board-only single-grant commands.
> - The API checks company access and permission-management authority
and records each change.
> - An operator can sign in, grant one agent permission, and preserve
the agent's other grants.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A proxied CLI login returned an approval URL on the upstream host. The
signed-in browser was on the public host. The CLI also had no command to
add an arbitrary explicit agent grant: member commands manage human
members, while agent permissions:update exposes fixed configuration
fields.
**Expected behavior**
Approval uses the configured canonical public origin. A Board operator
with users:manage_permissions can grant or revoke one explicit agent
permission without replacing other grants or activating an inactive
membership.
**Steps to reproduce**
Configure a public auth origin. Create a CLI challenge through a proxy
that replaces forwarded-host headers. Inspect the approval URL. Then try
to grant commentary:view to an agent through the CLI.
## What Changed
- Use the existing public-origin resolver for CLI approval URLs.
- Add agent permission:grant and permission:revoke commands.
- Add PATCH /api/agents/{id}/permission-grants with strict shared
validation and Board-only OpenAPI metadata.
- Serialize each mutation on the agent row. Preserve unrelated grants
and membership state. Commit the grant and its activity record together
and publish activity after commit.
- Document remote login and single-grant management.
## Verification
- The new approval-link regression failed before the fix and passes
after it.
- All 25 CLI auth route tests pass.
- All 72 affected CLI, login and OpenAPI tests pass.
- All 5 PostgreSQL grant tests pass, including actual commentary reads
(403 before grant, 200 after grant, 403 after revoke), preservation,
audit attribution, concurrent additions, invalid inputs, inactive or
missing membership, agent self-grants, cross-company denial, and
rollback on audit failure.
- Shared and CLI typechecks and server declaration-layer checks pass.
- pnpm verify requests broad CI coverage because doc/CLI.md is a global
verification input. Greptile reviewed final head
|
||
|
Dotta
|
1b7fe33432 |
fix(workspaces): preserve import verification across process restarts (#20311)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Online import preserves old local files before the web server can use a disposable filesystem. > - A parent import must authenticate saved child archives before it can omit their directories. > - The operation journal preserves import identity, but completed child checks existed only in process memory. > - A container restart therefore repeated downloads, decryption and restoration that had already succeeded. > - This pull request saves a versioned verification receipt on each immutable child snapshot. > - A replacement process can reuse those checks while it reacquires locks and verifies current local files. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19854 for verification reuse within a live source fence. Refs #19873 for cohort import. Refs #20298 for the separate remote-hold admission fix. Searched related workspace verification and restart PRs; none provides durable child verification. **What happened?** Replacing a server container interrupts a long online import. The original operation and snapshot survive, but a later invocation downloads, decrypts and restores completed child archives again. The current cache ends with the source-lock owner. **Expected behavior** Completed immutable checks survive process and scratch loss. Resume keeps the same operation and snapshot, reuses only correctly bound verification, and publishes once. Current local files and Git state must still be checked under fresh source locks. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Import two nested child workspaces, then start the parent import. 2. Kill the importer after a child verification finishes. Remove its scratch directory. 3. Resume in a new process. Before this fix, the completed child is downloaded and restored again. **Paperclip version or commit** The regression fails on the previous migration verifier. The final branch includes master at `189fefb99183953be37f0d1084275fbb0f35d6e2`. **Deployment mode** Managed Linux server with PostgreSQL and explicit S3 storage configuration. ## What Changed - Add optional opaque storage namespace identity. S3 binds it to the explicit endpoint, region, bucket, normalized prefix and addressing style. Implicit endpoints retain full verification. - Save a versioned child-snapshot receipt only after canonical crypto, manifest and file restoration succeed and a second HEAD confirms the same strong ETag and size. - Bind reuse to the complete snapshot reference, key material, child lineage, source operation and storage namespace. Require a fresh strong HEAD and canonical validation that the current secret provider can unwrap the saved snapshot key. - Keep current directory/Git capture and source-owner checks on every invocation. Read-only verifier callers do not write checkpoints. - Merge checkpoint metadata under a short row lock without changing parent journal hashes, snapshot retention or update timestamps. Bound reads and writes. Lock timeouts, statement timeouts, deadlocks and serialization conflicts are safe cache misses. Other errors remain fatal. - Extend real PostgreSQL/Git/archive tests with process death, scratch removal, resume, changed bindings and single publication. ## Verification - Baseline RED: two import invocations read each child twice. With durable receipts, each child is read once across both invocations. - Real process regression passed on the final rebased head: SIGKILL the owned importer after one checkpoint, delete all scratch, and resume in a new Node process. It retains the same operation and snapshot, reads each child once across both processes, and records one publication. - 53 focused cases passed in 104.86 seconds on the final production bytes before rebase. They cover existing nested/cohort behavior, namespace identity, changed source/reference/key/lineage/ETag, unknown proof versions, weak validators and bounded row contention. - After clean rebase and stronger scratch/snapshot assertions, the real process case passed again in 18.54 seconds. Server TypeScript, module boundaries and diff checks passed on final head `9da68ee7ce4a778201ef85e21a11c49eeea7bc16`. Required CI supplies final-head broad coverage. - The initial restricted-network dependency setup failed; unchanged preflight passed with normal network access. Initial TypeScript failures in test pipe assertions were corrected. No failed attempt is counted as a pass. - Review found a missing current-master-key check. A real restart regression with all child checkpoints complete reproduced unsafe publication after switching to a different valid master key. Follow-up `7ea92c2abd9ffdb2e7dd81cecf62c8fc7a6e74a5` delegates to the canonical snapshot-key owner before both durable and in-memory cache hits. - The fixed process regressions passed 2/2. Ten key-authority and existing identity/source guard cases passed. The wrong-key process now refuses with zero additional child payload GETs, no publication, and unchanged original journal/snapshot rows. Server typecheck, module boundaries and diff checks passed on the follow-up. - Review also found that transient database failures could make the optional checkpoint cache stop a valid import. Read and save now fall back only for SQLSTATE `55P03`, `57014`, `40P01`, and `40001`. Connection loss, identity changes, crypto failures, programming errors and cancellation remain fatal. Reads use a read-only transaction with one-second lock and eight-second statement limits. - The checkpoint database-fault regression failed two cases before the fix. All four recoverable import cases then passed. The final selected run passed 21 cases, including fatal-error and cancellation controls, real row contention, both process-restart cases and key/identity guards. Server typecheck and boundaries passed. Fault injection is limited to the checkpoint database boundary; the importer, PostgreSQL, Git, archives, storage and publication remain real. - Latest master was merged without rewriting published history. Six real import/process-restart cases passed again on final head `8c8e4213a680ebb5c8d6864416bc3a4f271e1e76` in 38.03 seconds. [Required CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42658248222) finished with 54 successful checks and four intentional skips; Snyk passed. [Fresh review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20311#issuecomment-6745354381) is 5/5 with all four threads addressed and resolved. Hosted verification after normal release delivery remains pending. ## Risks - A stale receipt could skip authentication of a different object. Complete reference/lineage/namespace binding, fresh strong HEAD and row-locked save validation prevent that reuse. Missing or unsupported hints trigger full verification. - Mutable local files can change between attempts. Their source locks and fresh captures remain required; a checkpoint never certifies current local bytes. - Checkpoint persistence can contend with other snapshot owners. It has one-second lock and eight-second statement limits; the four classified transient SQL errors retain the normal fully verified path. Other database errors stop the import so lost source ownership cannot be hidden. - No schema, archive format, public API or saved-run identity change. Older snapshots without receipts remain readable and get full verification. Existing data and recovery obligations stay intact. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`), with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. Context-window size is not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
0cf70c9d0c |
fix(chat): tell overviews to state when the picture is from (#20301)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People ask the CEO chat agent for a quick picture of what the company is doing now > - Such a picture is only useful when the person knows how current it is > - The chat guidance asks for accurate status, but it does not ask for a time > - A live overview said "right now" and gave no time, so the person could not tell when it was observed > - This pull request adds one guidance sentence: state the picture's time as a UTC clock time, from the latest message timestamp > - The benefit is that overviews tell the person when their information is from ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19614 **What happened** A person asked the chat agent "Give me a quick picture of what the company is doing right now." The agent read agents, projects, tasks and approvals and gave a correct summary. The summary did not say when it was observed. The only time word was "right now". **Expected behavior** An overview of current work states when the picture is from, as a clock time. The native prompt already lists each new comment with its timestamp, so the agent has a time it can use. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a chat with the CEO agent in a company that has active, blocked and done tasks. 2. Ask "Give me a quick picture of what the company is doing right now." 3. The reply summarizes the work but gives no observation time. ## What Changed - `AGENT_CHAT_DIRECTIVE` status-update guidance: when the agent describes what the company, a project or agents are doing now, it states a UTC clock time, such as "As of 15:26 UTC". It uses the latest message's timestamp unless a record it read gives a later time. - A regression test checks that the directive contains this guidance. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-list.test.ts` passes (includes the prompt-size limits). - The chat-catalog eval `activity.company-overview` now grades a real observation time (stacked eval PR on `chat-eval/master-candidate`). This fix is cherry-picked onto that eval branch for the next live run. No live run has used it yet. ## Risks - Low risk. This is one guidance sentence. Overviews get one extra clause with a time. - The time is the message time, not a server clock read. Reads happen seconds after the message, so the difference is small. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
12523fb677 |
fix(chat): send a task whose automatic recovery stopped to the person's Retry (#20306)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A person asks the chat agent (the controller) to act on tasks that other agents own > - When a task's automatic recovery stops, for example after three runner losses, the task is blocked and the person gets a Retry control on it. Retry rechecks the task's gates and keeps the failed attempt's evidence > - The blocker told every reader "Try again or send a new message to continue". A controller read that as its own instruction. It found that Retry is board-only, then resumed the task with a comment and reassigned the task to itself > - That skips the assignee's budget and hold gates and hides the failed-run Retry from the person > - This pull request names Retry as the person's control in the blocker text, and tells the controller to point the person to it > - The benefit is that "try that task again" leads to the supported, gated Retry instead of an agent takeover ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20270 (automatic recovery after a lost local runner) **What happened?** In the chat eval `chat-features.runner-opencode.local.recovery.retry-exhausted`, a person asked the CEO agent to "Try the website task again" after the website task's native recovery was exhausted. The agent read the task's `executionBlocker` (`canRetry: true`, nextAction "... Try again or send a new message to continue once the previous execution has stopped."). It found that `POST /api/issues/{id}/retry` is board-only. It then posted a `resume: true` comment, which moved the task from blocked to todo, and reassigned the task to itself to re-run it. The task lost its failed-run Retry control, and the original assignee's gates were not checked. **Expected behavior** The agent links the original task, says why it stopped, and tells the person to use Retry there. It takes the work over only when the person explicitly asks for that. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let a native run exhaust its automatic recovery (for example, three runner losses). 2. In the controller chat, ask it to try that task again. 3. The agent comments to resume the task, or reassigns it, instead of pointing to Retry. ## What Changed - `execution-blocker.ts`: the text that is added when a person can retry is now `EXECUTION_BLOCKER_PERSON_RETRY_ACTION`: "A person can use Retry on this task, or send it a new message, to continue once the previous execution has stopped. Agents cannot retry it for them." - `agent-conversations.ts`: a new chat guidance paragraph. When another task's automatic recovery has stopped, the supported next step is the person's Retry on that task. The controller links the task and explains why it stopped. It does not reassign the task, change its status, comment on it to resume it, or create a replacement task, unless the person explicitly asks it to take the work over. ## Verification - `board-access-denial.test.ts`: the directive contains the new rule. - `execution-blocker-read.test.ts`: a retryable blocker's nextAction ends with the person-Retry text. - 54 tests pass locally for these two files. - Paid live run of `recovery.retry-exhausted` with this change and #20270 on the eval branch: the run ID will be added below. ## Risks - Low. Only text changes. Any UI that shows the blocker's nextAction shows the new sentence instead of "Try again or send a new message ...". - No schema or saved-state change. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use 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 version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
90404d2033 |
perf(run-logs): read object-store log tails in parallel, once, and cached (#20284)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Hosted instances keep run logs in object storage as a journal of
content-addressed segments and binary index nodes
> - The task chat reads the last 32 KB of a run's log, aligned to a
record, to show what the agent did
> - A run that flushes often has many small segments. The tail read
fetched each object one after another, and record alignment walked the
index a second time
> - On staging, one tail read took 11–12 s, and the task chat waited for
it (see #20277)
> - This pull request reads the tail in parallel, in one pass, and
caches the objects that cannot change
> - The benefit is that the first tail read is about 6.6x faster, and
repeated reads (live polling, reopening a task) use only the mutable
head
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
`GET
/api/heartbeat-runs/:runId/log?offset=…&limitBytes=32000&alignStartToRecord=true`
took 11–12 s on staging for a 400 KB object-store log. Without alignment
it took 6.1 s. A read from offset 0 took 2.0 s. The task chat waited for
this read before it showed the run's output.
**Expected behavior**
A 32 KB tail read returns in well under a second, and a repeated read of
the same tail costs about one storage round trip.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Use object-backed run logs (`s3_segments`).
2. Write a run log in many small flushes, as a live run does.
3. Read its last 32 KB with `alignStartToRecord=true`, and count the
object GETs and how many run at the same time.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
099adb2728 |
fix(recovery): settle a remote workspace save that stopped without finishing (#20291)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Native runs in remote sandboxes save the workspace as snapshots.
Each save is a `workspace_operations` row with phase
`remote_workspace_snapshot`
> - The ownership registry lists that kind as in-progress work, but it
had no settle step
> - When a restart cut off a failing final save, the row stayed
`running` after its invocations had all stopped and its run had ended
> - The retained-source fallback refuses while any workspace operation
is running, so a task whose saved files could not be verified could
never continue from its last save
> - This pull request lets the ownership reconciler settle that row as
failed
> - The benefit is that the automatic fallback can continue such a task
without any user action
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A native run in a remote sandbox finished its turn. Its final workspace
save failed because the sandbox disk was full ("No space left on device"
in the snapshot copy). A graceful restart then interrupted the retry.
The run ended as `native_workspace_sync_out_retry_exhausted`. Its
`remote_workspace_snapshot` row kept `status: running` for six days,
with `saveWork: { activeIds: [], unknown: false, quiescedAt: <time> }`
and `exportCleanup: { state: "pending" }`. The retained-source fallback
checked the task and refused with `workspace_operation_running`, so the
task stayed blocked.
**Expected behavior**
A save with no active or unknown invocation, whose run is terminal, is
finished work. The reconciler must mark it failed, so the fallback can
continue from the last committed save. A save that might still be
running must stay untouched.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a native task in a remote sandbox. Make its final save fail, then
restart the server during the retry, so the save's work is quiesced and
the operation stays `running`.
2. Let the task's recovery refuse with an unverifiable-source failure
(for example `allocation_ownership_ambiguous`).
3. The retained-source fallback refuses with
`workspace_operation_running` on every check, and the task never
continues.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
ef2b8d5324 |
fix(issues): make every Retry start work or say why (#20283)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - When a task's run fails, the board recovers it with a Retry button, so that button must either start work or say why it did not > - An audit of every Retry-type button found three gaps. The task Retry shown during a scheduled retry's countdown returned "accepted" but changed nothing. A stale Retry looked like success in the Inbox. "Retry now" skipped the task's read and change checks, so a member who cannot see a private task could start its retry > - This pull request makes the task Retry start a scheduled retry immediately, makes every Retry that did not start work say why, and gives "Retry now" the same authorization as the task Retry > - The benefit is that no Retry click silently does nothing ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19831. The board reported a dead Retry button. A read-only audit of every Retry button confirmed: - **Task Retry during a scheduled retry was a no-op.** `TaskInterruptionPresentation.canRetry` is true in `retry_scheduled`, so `ExecutionBlockerNotice` shows Retry. `requestTaskRetry` treats `scheduled_retry` as busy and inserts a `coalesced` wake pointing at that run. `resumeTaskRetry` reads only `deferred_issue_execution`, and dispatch uses coalesced user wakes only to carry comments. Nothing promoted the run: the API answered 202 `accepted: true` and the countdown did not change. - **A stale Retry looked like success.** `accepted: false, stale: true` comes back as HTTP 200. The Inbox ignored `accepted` and opened the task as if work had started. The task page showed no reason. - **"Retry now" checked less than the task Retry.** It ran only `assertBoard` and `getAccessibleResource`, skipping `assertIssueReadAllowed` and `issue:mutate`. A company member who cannot read a private task could promote that task's scheduled retry. - **"Retry now" said nothing for some outcomes.** It toasted only `promoted` and `gate_suppressed`. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/task-retry.ts`: when the Retry coalesces into the task's latest run and that run is `scheduled_retry` (with no other Retry already active), the receipt returns `scheduledRetryRunId`. - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: - `POST /issues/:id/retry` then promotes that run through the existing `retryScheduledRetryNow`, the same path "Retry now" uses. It logs `issue.scheduled_retry_retry_now` with `source: "task_retry"` and returns `scheduledRetry: { outcome, message }`. - `POST /issues/:id/scheduled-retry/retry-now` now runs `assertIssueReadAllowed` and `decideIssueAccess("issue:mutate")`, matching `/retry`. A private task the member cannot read now answers 404. - `ui/src/hooks/useTaskRetry.ts`: new `taskRetryNotStartedReason`. When a Retry did not start work (stale, or a scheduled retry that is gate-suppressed, waiting, or gone), the hook returns that reason as its error. `ExecutionBlockerNotice` and `StalledDependencyNotice` already display it. - `ui/src/pages/Inbox.tsx`: a task Retry that did not start work shows the reason in the error toast and does not navigate. - `ui/src/hooks/useRetryNowMutation.ts` and `IssueScheduledRetryCard.tsx`: every "Retry now" outcome now shows its headline and message, including `no_scheduled_retry` on the card. - `ui/src/api/issues.ts`: `retryTask`'s response type includes `scheduledRetry`. ## Verification Red/green (each new test fails against master and passes with this PR): - `server/src/__tests__/issue-scheduled-retry-routes.test.ts`: - "starts a scheduled retry now when the task Retry is clicked during its countdown": 202 with `scheduledRetry.outcome: "promoted"`, the same run becomes `queued`, and no second retry run is created. - "refuses Retry now on a private task the member cannot see, like the task Retry": on master "Retry now" answers 200 `promoted`; now both routes answer 404 and the run stays `scheduled_retry`. - The seed now adds the board user's membership, which the stricter route needs. All 33 tests pass. - `ui/src/hooks/useTaskRetry.test.tsx`: a replaced attempt, a gate-held scheduled retry and a waiting scheduled retry each show their reason; a promoted one shows nothing extra. - `ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx`: an Inbox Retry that did not start work (stale, or gate-held) toasts the reason and does not navigate. - `ui/src/components/IssueScheduledRetryCard.test.tsx`: "explains when there was no scheduled retry left to start". Other Retry buttons: the chat failed-run Retry already reports stopped and failed retries (`agents.test.ts`). Agent lifecycle "Retry now" and cost "Retry accounting" start no task work and already surface their API errors. Regression and static checks: - UI: 7 files, 168 passed. Server: task-retry and scheduled-retry suites, 149 passed. `issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` passed. - `maintenance-server-routes.test.ts` "assembled maintenance server production wiring" fails identically on master on this Mac (`ensure-build-deps`). - `tsc --noEmit` passes for `server` and `ui/src`. `pnpm check:token-gates` is clean. ## Risks - A task Retry during a scheduled retry now starts the run immediately, through the existing "Retry now" promotion gates (pause, budget, cleanup waits). A gate that holds it is reported, not bypassed. - "Retry now" is stricter: a member without read or change access to the task gets 404 or 403, as on `/retry`. - No schema change. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
5c73633a8f |
fix(workspaces): preserve remote recovery holds during online import (#20298)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Online workspace import preserves old controller-local files while unrelated remote work continues. > - A task can have an old local checkout and a separate durable remote workspace. > - A terminal remote run can retain a file-recovery hold on that task. > - The legacy source checker rejects remote references, so that hold blocks independent local imports. > - This pull request proves that the hold belongs only to the separate remote source and fences its finalizer during import. > - Old files can migrate while the remote recovery obligation stays intact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19873 and #19854 for the existing cohort and source-verification paths. Searched related online migration and remote recovery PRs; no duplicate fix was found. **What happened?** Online import rejects a legacy Git checkout with `online_workspace_source_scope_unproven` when a same-task failed run has a prepared reference to a separate durable remote workspace. The legacy run reader rejects remote references before the hold can be classified. **Expected behavior** Independent local files can import under their source fences. The separate remote workspace, dirty writer, allocation, accepted result and recovery hold must stay intact. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create related local Git workspaces. 2. Record a terminal failed native run and an exhausted file-recovery hold for a separate durable remote workspace on the same task. 3. Import the local leaf online. The old checker refuses before capture. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master at `052c638b519ebb15f81e4fcd1a96adf6cd3b2f10`. **Deployment mode** Managed server with PostgreSQL and remote Runner execution. ## What Changed - Add a distinct remote-only preservation proof. Keep remote runs excluded from legacy export sources. - Use the canonical source inspector and prepared-reference matcher. Bind the run, finalizer, action, task, accepted result, authority, allocation and prior committed snapshot. - Acquire the held run's finalizer fence through the existing sorted lock path. Existing source-proof reinspection rejects changes before publication. - Preserve previous-release prepared references with an older baseline snapshot. Do not require that snapshot's epoch or source run to equal the current run. - Add real PostgreSQL import, authenticated cold restore, preservation, refusal, lock-contention and publication-race regressions. Document the behavior. ## Verification - Genuine baseline failure on unchanged product: the real importer refuses with `online_workspace_source_scope_unproven`. - Final focused regression file: 23 tests passed in 13.19 seconds through the canonical isolated PostgreSQL wrapper on Node 24.22.2. - 24 existing affected migration/recovery tests passed against the same final production bytes. Another 83 tests were explicitly excluded by the focused selection; no full-suite pass is claimed. - The positive imports local bytes, confirms the remote finalizer fence is held during upload, leaves all remote records unchanged, parks the original repository and authenticates/restores the archive. - Refusal and race cases cover malformed, foreign, same-local and mixed references; active owners/writers; changed allocation, result, task, action, authority and baseline; and finalizer contention. - Server TypeScript check, module-boundary check and `git diff --check` passed. - An intermediate run had one incorrect assertion that expected an explicit empty legacy-source array. The canonical journal omits that empty field. The final assertion accepts absence and still forbids any exported remote source. Final relevant results are 23 new plus 24 existing passes, rather than a claim that the earlier invocation passed in full. - Required CI passed on head `6a278e717db2b5f614b0a595f99bfd0fb5430227`: 55 successful checks and 4 intentional skips. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42650025033). Greptile reviewed that head at 5/5 with no actionable findings or open inline/review comments. Hosted continuation remains pending normal delivery. ## Risks - A false disjointness proof could admit an unsafe local import. Strict company/task/source binding, the canonical inspector, finalizer fencing and publication revalidation retain refusal on uncertainty. - This does not recover or settle remote files. Dirty authority and the original recovery obligation remain unchanged. - No schema, public API, archive format or saved-run identity changes. Existing persisted state carries forward. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`), with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. The runtime does 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 |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
d10c6e0e8b |
fix(chat): hold a chat message at the agent's daily limit instead of dropping it (#20292)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent Chat sends each person's message to the conversation agent through a durable outbox (`deliverConversationComments`). The outbox keys each wake receipt as `conversation-comment:<commentId>`. > - The outbox treats any receipt with that key as delivered. Queue admission writes a `skipped` receipt when the agent reached its daily run or cost limit. > - So a chat message sent after the agent used its daily allowance was consumed silently. No run started, the chat showed nothing, and nothing resumed it. > - A person's message must never be silently dropped. The daily limit is an operator control, so the message must wait honestly, not bypass the limit. > - This pull request makes the outbox hold the message at the daily limit, like it already does for a paused agent, and resume it when the limit resets. > - The benefit is that a chat message at the daily limit is saved, shown with its reason, and sent automatically at 00:00 UTC. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. Inline bug report: **What happened** In a chat eval, the conversation agent (CEO) had `maxDailyRuns: 3`. After three chat turns and a separate failed-model phase on another agent, the person sent a fourth message. The comment was saved (POST 201), but no CEO run started. The conversation stayed `active` with no `executionRunId`. The ownership reconciler later reported `I7_visible_next_action`. The server log shows no wake error. Queue admission had written a `skipped` receipt (`heartbeat.daily_run_limit`) under the outbox key, so the outbox counted the message as delivered. **Expected behavior** A chat message that reaches the agent's daily limit is not consumed. It stays saved, the chat shows why it waits, and it is sent automatically when the limit resets. The daily limit still applies: the message does not start a run early. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Set a conversation agent's `runtimeConfig.heartbeat.maxDailyRuns` to N. 2. Send N chat messages and let each turn finish. 3. Send one more chat message. 4. See that no run starts, the chat shows no waiting state, and the message is never answered (a `skipped` wake receipt with reason `heartbeat.daily_run_limit` exists for `conversation-comment:<id>`). ## What Changed - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: add `conversationDeliveryHold`, which applies the same daily run/cost limit check as queue admission. The outbox returns `deferred` at the limit and writes no receipt, so the message stays owed. It reports the next UTC day start through a new optional `onDeferredDeadline` option. - `server/src/services/recovery/service.ts`: stranded-work recovery passes its `onDeferredDeadline` to the outbox, so the held message is retried when the limit resets. - `server/src/services/heartbeat/queue.ts`: if the limit is reached while an outbox wake is in admission (a race), admission throws a 409 with `reason: heartbeat.daily_*` for `conversation-comment:` keys instead of writing a `skipped` receipt. The outbox already maps a matching 409 to `deferred`. Other wakes keep the current skip behavior. - `server/src/routes/issues.ts` (`GET /issues/:id/queued-comments`): when a chat has no queue receipt but has messages held by the daily limit, return them as a `deferred` queue with `executionWait` (reason and message). Edit, send and discard stay off because the outbox owns delivery. - `ui/src/components/task-chat/TaskChatQueuedMessages.tsx`: show the `executionWait` message for such an outbox-held queue (no queue id and no target run). Receipt-backed queues keep the current behavior and do not duplicate the task status. - Tests: three real-database tests in `agent-conversation-delivery.test.ts` (hold and resume after the limit resets, recovery deadline, and a limit reached during real `heartbeatService.wakeup` admission) and one UI test. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversation-delivery.test.ts`: 10 passed. Without the source change, the three new tests fail (`expected 'delivered' to be 'deferred'`; the real queue path writes the skipped receipt). - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-recovery-conversations.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-undispatched-execution-wait.test.ts src/services/heartbeat/queue.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-chat-messages.test.ts`: 215 passed. - `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/task-chat/TaskChatQueuedMessages.test.tsx`: 36 passed. - `pnpm exec tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json`: clean. `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs`: clean. - Manual: give a chat agent `maxDailyRuns: 1`, send two messages. The second message shows in the queued messages bar with "<agent> reached its daily run limit. Your message is saved and sends automatically when the limit resets at 00:00 UTC." ## Risks - Behavior change for chat only: a chat message at the daily limit now waits in the outbox instead of being consumed. It is sent after 00:00 UTC. If an operator raises the limit, the message is sent on the next recovery pass for that chat; the UI message does not promise an earlier send. - Saved state from the previous release: no persisted shape changes. Messages that an earlier release already consumed with a `skipped` receipt stay consumed. They are not replayed later, which avoids sending old messages without notice. - The queued-comments read adds one agent read and one daily-limit count for a chat with no queue receipt. This is the same query that admission runs. - The recovery deadline is in-process; instance-sleep scheduling does not get a new deadline from this change. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), agentic coding with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
87e755ce8e |
fix(recovery): verify cross-task warm sandbox handoffs and say plainly when recovery refuses (#20282)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Native runs in remote sandboxes keep a warm sandbox and hand it to
the next run through a chain of reusable leases
> - Acquisition binds that chain to the execution workspace, so a task
can inherit a warm sandbox from an earlier task in the same workspace
> - Saved-files recovery verifies the same chain, but it required every
earlier lease, run, and finalization to belong to the recovering task
> - A valid chain that started with another task therefore always failed
with `allocation_ownership_ambiguous`. That code is `service_required`,
so recovery stopped after one attempt, and each board Retry repeated the
same refusal
> - This pull request makes the chain check match the acquisition rule,
and it checks each predecessor against its own task
> - It also makes the board say plainly when recovery refuses the saved
state, because "failed after automatic retries" was not true and Retry
looked like it did nothing
> - The benefit is that a task blocked with "Saving the agent's files
failed after automatic retries" can recover its saved files, and a
refusal that Retry cannot change is shown with its reason
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A native run in a remote sandbox finished its turn, and its result was
accepted. The copy of its files back to the host failed and was
scheduled to retry. A graceful server restart then interrupted the
retry, so the run settled with
`native_workspace_sync_out_retry_exhausted`, and the task became
blocked. Every saved-files recovery generation then failed on its first
attempt with `allocation_ownership_ambiguous` (`service_required`). The
board showed "Saving the agent's files failed after automatic retries.
Retry to try again". Each Retry replaced the generation
(`issue.recovery_generation_replaced`), and the new generation failed in
the same way within one second. To the user, Retry did nothing. The
sandbox lease chain was valid: same agent, same execution workspace,
same sandbox, and matching handoff receipts on all eight leases. But its
first three leases belonged to an earlier task in the same workspace.
**Expected behavior**
Recovery must accept a warm sandbox chain that acquisition accepted.
Acquisition binds reuse to the execution workspace, and it requires the
same task only when the lease has no workspace. Recovery must check each
predecessor run and finalization against that predecessor's own task. It
must still refuse a chain whose records disagree or that has no shared
workspace.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a native task in a remote sandbox with `reuse_by_environment`,
with an execution workspace that another task also uses.
2. Run the other task in the same workspace first, so the sandbox lease
is handed from that task to this one.
3. Make the last run of the second task fail to copy its files back (for
example, restart the server during the copy-back retry).
4. Wait for saved-files recovery, or click Retry. Recovery fails with
`allocation_ownership_ambiguous`, and Retry repeats the failure.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at
|
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
052c638b51 |
fix(environments): honor stopped-task proof after warm preparation (#20289)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A warm plugin Runner retains its task for later runs. > - A follow-up can find that the retained task has stopped. > - The resume path already asks settle to check status before it sends stop. > - A saved startup marker disabled this order, even after warm preparation had finished. > - This pull request applies the same stop-proof check to all observed-stop releases. > - The next run skips a repeated stop when status proves both execution and required preparation have stopped. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #20224 Refs #20203 ## What Changed - Remove the startup-marker exclusion from the existing status-first path. Keep the existing shared confirmation check. It still requires `preparationStopped: true` for startup work. - Keep stop followed by status when the first status lacks the required proof. Keep the startup drain, credential writeback, complete, and cleanup failure handling. - Add retained-task coverage with the startup metadata that warm preparation saves. Cover a startup cleanup whose first status lacks preparation proof. - Update the plugin task lifecycle contract. ## Verification - Local macOS, source base `3e8744fa91`: from `server`, `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/environment-task-runtime.test.ts src/__tests__/plugin-warm-tasks.integration.test.ts src/__tests__/plugin-task-credential-writeback.test.ts` passed: 3 files, 82 tests. The integration tests use real embedded PostgreSQL and controlled plugin results. - After restoring the fix, the two affected files passed again: 73 tests. - Independent parent verification on commit `19f720ff68`: the two files filtered to the changed startup-proof and retained-task cases passed (4 tests). Independent source review found no actionable issue. - Baseline proof: with only the source condition restored to upstream, the new retained-task test with saved startup metadata fails because it sees an extra `stop`. The case without that metadata passes. The source fix was then restored. - The retained-task regression asserts exactly `environmentResumeLease`, `status`, `complete`, and `environmentAcquireLease`, with both task operations bound to the old task. The startup test also proves that missing preparation proof sends `stop` and a second `status`. - Test setup: `node scripts/agent-preflight.mjs --skip-rust-debug --explain` installed dependencies, then stopped because Cargo is unavailable on this Mac. Initial test collection failed because the plugin SDK output was absent. `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` built that required dependency and the shared package; the targeted test run then passed. - Standard Greptile reviewed commit `19f720ff686058b4dd6b34f27cdfb9c8ff60e50a` at 5/5 with no review threads. [Review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20289#issuecomment-6743829614). - Full local checks were not run, as requested. [GitHub PR workflow 42644023868](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42644023868) passed on final commit `19f720ff686058b4dd6b34f27cdfb9c8ff60e50a`. It supplied broad typecheck, build, and test coverage. The separate Snyk status passed. Optional Storybook checks were skipped. - The change removes one provider stop call on the reported path. The issue's measured eight calls would become seven if other calls stay the same. The earlier five-call target is not claimed. No deployed latency measurement is claimed. ## Risks - A provider that cannot prove preparation stopped still gets stop and status. That fallback can cost one extra status call, as the existing status-first contract already allows. - A status failure keeps cleanup pending and blocks replacement. No termination proof or credential handoff is skipped. - No schema, API, dependency, or timer change. No added work on successful task reuse or ordinary task dispatch. - Live provider acceptance remains unrun. The local evidence checks orchestration and stop-proof handling. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository inspection, shell tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
dc9ad17515 |
perf(storage): time workspace snapshot save and restore steps and count storage retries (#20280)
## Thinking Path
- Cloud durable storage is a major source of failures and slowness on
staging. For example, a staging task failed when saving files after
automatic retries.
- Before measuring or fixing it, we need to see where storage time goes.
Today a saved-workspace restore before the turn appears only inside the
coarse `workspace_environment_realize` phase.
- After the turn, the save's encrypt, put, verify and multipart throttle
backoff have no timing at all. Only `captureMs`, `transferMs`,
`verifyMs`, `uploadMs` and `publishMs` exist, in `saveTiming`.
- Storage retries happen in the SDK and in the multipart uploader,
invisibly.
- This adds the measurement first, so the storage-mode chaos waves
(MinIO behind a fault proxy) can report save and restore p50/p95 and
point at the dominant wait.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Durable-storage saves and restores were opaque in the run log and save
timing. A slow or repeatedly retried storage call could not be told
apart from slow capture, encryption or sandbox work.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a remote task with S3-compatible durable storage, so it saves
after the turn and restores on the next run.
2. Inspect the run log and the `remote_workspace_snapshot` operation's
`saveTiming`. The restore's download, decrypt and verify, and the save's
put, verify and throttle backoff, have no timing.
**Expected behavior**
Each storage step has a duration, and storage request retries and
backoff are counted.
## What Changed
- `server/src/storage/request-stats.ts` (new): an async-local collector
of storage request statistics. Counts only:
- `requests`, `attempts` and `failedRequests`;
- `retryDelayMs` (SDK waits);
- `parts`, `throttled` and `backoffMs` (the multipart uploader's waits).
- `server/src/storage/s3-failure.ts`: `withS3FailureDiagnostics`, which
wraps every S3 send, records each request's SDK `$metadata.attempts` and
`totalRetryDelay`, on success and on failure.
- `server/src/storage/s3-multipart.ts`: records each uploaded part and
each resend wait, flagged throttled when the backend returned 503, 429
or SlowDown.
- `server/src/services/remote-workspace-snapshot-storage.ts`:
- Each step is a `storage.snapshot.*` run phase:
- save: `prior_attempts`, `encrypt`, `digest`, `put`, `verify`;
- restore: `download`, `decrypt`, `verify_plaintext`, `publish`.
- A caller can pass a `timing` record that receives the step durations,
the bytes and the request statistics.
- `server/src/services/remote-workspaces.ts`:
- The save passes a timing record, kept in `saveTiming.storage`.
- The sandbox unpack during a restore is its own phase,
`workspace.snapshot.sandbox_restore`.
- `execution-preparation-timing.ts`: the new phase names.
- `doc/run-log-events.md`: a new "Durable storage timing" section.
Because the restore runs inside run preparation, its steps of 50 ms or
more become `run.performance.span` rows with no extra plumbing. This is
run-log and instance-database data only; there's no Telemetry change.
## Verification
- `server`: `storage-s3-multipart-backoff`, `storage-s3-multipart`,
`storage-s3-multipart-throttle`, `storage-s3-failure-diagnostics`,
`remote-workspace-snapshot-storage` and `execution-preparation-timing`
tests: 86 passed. They include:
- collected stats for a throttled multipart upload: 12 requests, 7
failed, 7 throttled, 35.5 s backoff and 3 parts;
- a save and restore that fill every step duration and the byte count.
- `remote-workspaces.integration.test.ts`: 112 passed. Its `saveTiming`
assertion now includes `storage`.
- Server typecheck: no errors in the touched files.
## Risks
- **Overhead:** one async-local lookup per S3 request, plus timestamps
per snapshot step.
- **Collector scope:** the collector only exists inside a snapshot save
or restore. Other storage callers are unaffected; they record nothing.
- **`saveTiming`** gains a `storage` object. Readers that compare it
exactly (one test, updated) will see the new field.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`, Anthropic), 1M context window, tool
use and code execution, via Claude Code.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
3ef45fdd92 |
fix(recovery): let a new task wait for its manually paused assignee (#20281)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A person can pause an agent. Tasks assigned to a paused agent wait until the person resumes it. > - Stranded-task recovery looks for assigned work that cannot continue and moves it to `blocked` for the board. > - A task created for a manually paused agent has no run yet. Recovery saw an assignee that is not invokable and moved the new task to `blocked` a few seconds after creation. > - The person paused the agent on purpose. The blocked task and its "the board must choose the next action" comment fight that decision, and the person must unblock the task by hand after resume. > - This pull request lets new `todo` work with no run wait while a manual pause lasts. The existing assigned-todo dispatch starts it when the agent is resumed. > - The benefit is that work queued for a paused agent starts on resume, as the pause promises. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** A chat evaluation pauses an agent (Morgan) and then runs `paperclipai issue create ... --assignee-agent-id <Morgan> --status todo`. The CLI returns the task with status `todo`. Within about five seconds the task changes to `blocked`, with the system comment "Paperclip cannot safely continue automatic recovery because the original assignee is not invokable. The source assignment is unchanged and the board must choose the next action." The server log shows only the expected 409 "Agent is not invokable" for the assignment wake. **Expected behavior** The task stays `todo` while the person keeps the agent paused. When the person resumes the agent, the task starts once. A comment and a `blocked` status are not added. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Pause an agent from its page. 2. Create a `todo` task assigned to that agent. 3. Wait for the stranded-task recovery sweep. See that the task is `blocked` with the comment above. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/recovery/service.ts`: in `reconcileStrandedAssignedIssues`, skip a `todo` task with no run when its assignee is paused with a `manual` lifecycle hold. The existing rule above it already skips work whose run the pause cancelled. Other pause causes, such as a budget hold, keep the existing escalation. - `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-paused-assignee-new-task.test.ts`: a PostgreSQL test. The task stays `todo` with no comment and no run during two recovery sweeps. After resume it starts exactly once and finishes. A budget-held assignee still escalates. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-paused-assignee-new-task.test.ts`: 2 passed. Without the fix, the first test fails with `expected 'blocked' to be 'todo'`. - `npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-refused-assignment-wake.test.ts`: passed. - `src/__tests__/issue-tree-pause-resume-run.test.ts` had timing failures on this low-memory machine both with and without this change (different tests each time). Those tests do not pause agents, so this change does not reach them. CI runs them on this branch. ## Risks - Low risk. The skip needs all of these: the agent is paused, it has a `manual` hold, the task is `todo`, and the task has no run. Work that already ran keeps the current rules. - No persisted state changes shape. State saved by the previous release carries forward: a task that the previous release already moved to `blocked` stays `blocked`. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Related: #20143 (a pause's stop never blocks the task behind an incident), #9998 (open: reject paused agents as assignment targets). 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
6db0bb9776 |
fix(chat): tell agents which CLI commands a person runs in their own terminal (#20267)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People talk to agents in chat. The chat guidance in `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts` tells every chat agent how to answer. > - People often ask a chat agent for a terminal command: create a task, download a plan, inspect or stop a run, or point the CLI at a company. > - The guidance did not name the Paperclip CLI. Agents guessed: they did the work themselves, wrote `curl`, used placeholder company ids, or invented an API address. > - The person then has to fix the command, or gets a file in the agent's workspace instead of on their own machine. > - This pull request adds one guidance paragraph. It names the supported `npx paperclipai` commands, asks for real ids from the conversation, and asks for the person's own Paperclip URL as a placeholder. > - The benefit is a command the person can run as it is, with the right company and the right actor. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** Three chat evaluations (cli-operations) asked for terminal commands. "Show me how to point my terminal at the Acorn company." got `context set` with `<acorn-company-id>` and an invented `http://localhost:3100`, although the agent can read its company id. "Download this task's plan from the terminal as a file." got a file saved in the agent's own workspace and an attachment link, with no terminal command. "Show me the command to inspect Morgan's last run and stop it if it is still running." got `curl` with environment variables that exist only in the agent's runtime. **Expected behavior** The agent gives `npx paperclipai` commands that the person runs in their own terminal. The commands use real ids that the agent can read in the conversation. The Paperclip address is the placeholder `<your Paperclip URL>`. The agent says which commands need a board user. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a chat with an agent. 2. Send "Download this task's plan from the terminal as a file." 3. See that the agent saves the file itself and gives no terminal command. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: add a chat guidance paragraph for terminal and CLI requests. It names the supported commands for task creation, document download, run read and cancel, and context profiles. It asks for one command per line, real ids, and the `<your Paperclip URL>` placeholder. - `cli/src/__tests__/chat-cli-guidance.test.ts`: a new test reads the guidance and resolves every `npx paperclipai` command against the registered commander commands. It fails on an unknown command, flag or missing argument. - `server/src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts`: check that the paragraph is in the directive and in the chat prompt. ## Verification - `cd cli && npx vitest run src/__tests__/chat-cli-guidance.test.ts`: 3 passed. - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts`: 80 passed. - The chat evaluations `cli-operations.choose-cli-context`, `export-document-cli` and `inspect-run-cli` run with this commit on an evaluation branch. Results are added in a comment. ## Risks - Low risk. The change adds prompt text and tests. Routes, permissions and responses do not change. - The chat prompt is about 300 words longer. - If a CLI command or flag changes, the new CLI test fails until the guidance changes too. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Related: #20029 (terminal sign-in guidance in the API catalog). 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Pavel-GuseynovandClaude Opus 5.5
|
4d297b998a |
fix(server): give remote MCP tool calls a 30 second default deadline and record stream failure evidence (#19768)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The tool gateway calls remote MCP servers over Streamable HTTP, and a server can answer `tools/call` with a `text/event-stream` body > - Such a server can send progress notifications before the response, and a slow tool can take more than 10 seconds > - The gateway aborts a remote MCP `tools/call` that uses the default deadline after 10 seconds, the general tool default > - When the call fails, the call evidence does not show how far the stream got, or whether the cause was the deadline or a broken transport > - This pull request gives remote MCP calls a default deadline of 30 seconds, the default response timeout of the remote HTTP client, and records the failure cause and the stream progress > - The benefit is that slow remote tools complete, and an operator can tell a deadline from a peer reset in the call evidence ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10147. That issue reports that a named MCP gateway aborts remote tools after 10 seconds and ignores the connection timeoutMs. This pull request raises the default deadline of a remote MCP `tools/call` to 30 seconds. It does not make the named gateway read the connection timeoutMs. Related: #11910 (open) keeps a connection callable after one timed-out tools/call. On current master a timeout and a JSON-RPC response error already keep the connection healthy, and this pull request keeps that policy. I searched pull requests and issues for "event stream tools/call", "SSE MCP tool call hang", "remote MCP timeout stream", "mcp text/event-stream" and "tool_timeout remote MCP". The only related open pull request is #11910. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/remote-http-fetch.ts`: the default response timeout is exported as `DEFAULT_REMOTE_HTTP_RESPONSE_TIMEOUT_MS` (30,000 ms, unchanged value). - `server/src/services/tool-gateway.ts`: - A remote MCP `tools/call` that uses the default deadline now gets `DEFAULT_REMOTE_HTTP_RESPONSE_TIMEOUT_MS` instead of the general tool default of 10 seconds. The Railway `run-command` budget and an explicit `timeoutMs` keep their values. - The call evidence records the response status, content type and request id before the body is read. A body that fails partway records the bytes received so far as its size. - A failed call records `failureKind` (`invocation_timeout`, `protocol_failure` or `transport_failure`), the deadline and whether it was aborted, the stream progress, and the error with its cause chain. Each string in the chain is redacted with `redactSensitiveText`, and a cyclic cause chain is cut with a "[Circular cause]" marker. - A deadline abort is a 504 `tool_timeout` and starts a fresh MCP session on the next call, as before. The connection health policy of master does not change. - A deliberate stop of a call (`elicitation_required`, `provider_interaction_required`, `oauth_insufficient_scope`, `oauth_refreshed_retry_required`) keeps its own reason when the deadline passes while it is recorded, as on master. An error that is already a gateway error also gets a failure kind: `tool_timeout` is `invocation_timeout`; a malformed, invalid or oversized response is `protocol_failure`; and `remote_http_*` (for example a DNS failure) and `mcp_remote_fetch_failed` are `transport_failure`. - A non-success response body is read as a stream, so a body that fails partway records the bytes that arrived. The reader stops at the size limit and cancels the body, as the `tools/call` reader does. #19785 makes the same reader change for the context path. - `server/src/services/mcp-http.ts`: `readMcpHttpResponse` takes an `onProgress` callback. It reports bytes, chunks and events received, whether the matching response arrived, and whether the stream ended. As on master, the read returns as soon as the response with the matching id arrives. - Tests: - `server/src/__tests__/mcp-http.test.ts`: a partial event followed by a peer error keeps the progress that was consumed, and releases the reader. - `server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway.test.ts`: six scenarios run against a remote server that streams one progress event first: slow success after 12 seconds, the default deadline, an explicit 1,500 ms deadline, a peer reset, a cyclic error cause, and a primitive error value. - `server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway.test.ts`: three regression tests: a tool question sent after the deadline passed keeps `elicitation_required`; a DNS failure records `transport_failure`; and a 503 body that fails partway records the bytes that arrived. All three fail on |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
ac0d0374f2 |
perf(issue-detail): measure task opens on real instances (#20276)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People open a task from their issues list to see what an agent is doing and to reply > - On a busy staging instance, the composer and the latest messages take 1.1–2.0 s to appear after a click. For one task with a slow run log, they took 13.9 s > - Local fixtures do not reproduce this. They do not have real network round trips, real server contention, or real object-store latency > - This pull request adds the measurement we need: a browser harness that times a task open on a real instance, and a Server-Timing entry on every API response that separates server time from network time > - It also records the staging baseline and the improvement plan > - The benefit is that each later performance change can be measured on real data with the same tool, before and after deploy ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Opening a task from the issues list is slow on instances with real data. The composer and the latest chat messages can take seconds to appear. We could not measure this on staging in a repeatable way. We also could not tell server time from network and queueing time for most API requests. **Proposed solution** Add a reusable browser harness for task opens, and add a `paperclip_api` Server-Timing entry to every API response. **Alternatives considered** Local Playwright fixtures only. They do not reproduce real network round trips, server contention or object-store latency, so they did not show the delays that people see. Per-endpoint Server-Timing only. It does not cover the many other requests that run during a task open. **Roadmap alignment** This is measurement for existing task-loading behaviour. It does not add product features. The staging baseline and the measured causes are in `doc/plans/2026-11-09-task-loading-performance.md`. Follow-up pull requests change the loading behaviour itself, starting with #20277. ## What Changed - Added `server/src/middleware/api-server-timing.ts`. Every `/api` response now has a `paperclip_api;dur=<ms>` Server-Timing entry. The value is the server time from request arrival until headers are written, including admission waits. The entry is appended, so the existing `paperclip_issue` phases stay first. - Registered the middleware first in `server/src/app.ts`. - Added `tests/perf/issue-detail/staging-click-harness.js`. It clicks a task row and records, frame by frame, when the composer and the latest message become visible, layout shifts, movement of the latest message, and the requests that run before the page is ready. The summary labels each sample instead of using the task reference. It replaces query values and every path segment that contains a digit. A fetch that is still running when the sample ends is listed as pending. - Documented the harness in `tests/perf/issue-detail/README.md`. - Added the dated plan `doc/plans/2026-11-09-task-loading-performance.md` with the staging baseline, the causes, and the prioritized slices. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/api-server-timing.test.ts`. 3 tests pass. They cover the JSON responses, the time spent in earlier middleware, preserving route phases, and explicit `writeHead` calls. - `tests/perf/issue-detail/issue-detail.perf.spec.ts` reads the first `dur=` value. That value is still `paperclip_issue`. - The harness was used on staging to capture the baseline in the plan document. ## Risks - Low risk. The header has only a duration, with no request, user or company data. - The middleware wraps `res.writeHead` once for each request. This is the same pattern that `on-headers` uses. - Server-Timing is visible to same-origin scripts only. No `Timing-Allow-Origin` header is added. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used in Claude Code with tool use (shell, browser automation, file editing). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
fb88a89f04 |
fix(chat): tell chat agents how to link a case page while Cases is enabled (#20265)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent Chat answers questions about company records and links each record it cites > - Chat guidance gives link formats for tasks, approvals, runs and agent profiles > - Cases (an experiment) have their own page at `/<prefix>/cases/<identifier>`, but the guidance does not name it > - So an agent that answers a question about a case's fact history names the case but cannot link it > - This pull request adds a Cases directive to chat guidance, only while the Cases experiment is on > - The benefit is that a person can open the case, where its facts and audit history are, from the reply ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** In a chat eval with Cases enabled, a person asked who changed a case's diagnosis. The agent read the case audit and the task's document revisions and answered correctly. It wrote "case COM-C1" as plain text. It linked only the task. The guidance in the chat prompt has no link format for a case, and the agent does not guess routes. **Expected behavior** When a reply concerns a case (its facts, fact-change history or handoffs), the agent links the case page as a Markdown link, for example `[RUN-C1](/<prefix>/cases/RUN-C1)`, and also links the tasks it cites. When the Cases experiment is off, the prompt does not mention cases. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable the Cases experiment. 2. Create a case with a primary task, and change one of its facts. 3. In Agent Chat, ask "Who changed the diagnosis, and what did it say before?" 4. Before this change, the reply names the case identifier but has no link to the case page. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: new `CASES_CHAT_DIRECTIVE`. It says what a case is, names the `/<prefix>/cases/<case identifier>` page, and asks for a Markdown link when a reply concerns a case. - `server/src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.ts`: new `casesEnabled` input. A conversation prompt includes the directive under "Cases:" only when it is true. - `server/src/services/heartbeat/task-context.ts`: sets `casesEnabled` from the `enableCases` experimental setting, the same way as `statusCardsEnabled`. - `server/src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.test.ts`: new test. The directive appears for a standing chat with Cases on. It does not appear with Cases off or for a non-chat task. The test also checks that the board route `cases/:caseIdentifier` exists in `ui/src/App.tsx`. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.test.ts` passes (18 tests). - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server` passes. - The `cases.case-history` chat eval uses this guidance. Its rerun is on branch `chat-eval/case-unclear-9`. ## Risks - Low risk. The change adds prompt text only when the Cases experiment is on. It does not change any API or permission. - The prompt for chats on instances with Cases enabled is slightly longer. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), 1M context, extended thinking, with tool use (shell, file edit, GitHub CLI). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
1004e55180 |
fix(recovery): stop stall wakes from failing setup on a held workspace (#20273)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Recovery tells a waiting parent or dependent when a child or blocker stalls on the board (`issue_blocker_stalled`) > - A legacy child that an older release bound to its parent's remote workspace failed its save, and its save recovery was exhausted. Its ended run still holds the shared workspace, days past the one-hour holder cutoff > - Workspace reservation refuses a run on such a hold and fails setup with "The workspace still has an unfinished writer or save operation." Every stall wake of the parent created a run that could only fail this way > - The stall sweep treated each failed run as an undelivered wake and retried it every ten minutes, with no backoff and no limit. On staging this made 72 failed runs (58 of 60 failures since a deploy), in pairs every ten minutes > - This pull request makes the stall sweep hold a wake while the waiter's workspace hold refuses a run, and bounds retries of a wake whose run fails > - The benefit is that a held workspace no longer produces a failed run every ten minutes, and the wake still arrives once the hold settles ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A parent task was woken by `issue_blocker_stalled` twice every ten minutes. Each run failed in setup (`setup_failed`, `executionRecovery.kind=bootstrap`, `providerWorkStarted=false`) with "The workspace still has an unfinished writer or save operation." The parent's remote workspace was held by a child's ended writer run whose save recovery was exhausted (`native_workspace_sync_out_retry_exhausted`, last failure `agent_stop_unconfirmed`). The child shared the parent's workspace because an older release created it before subtasks got their own workspace (#19860). **Expected behavior** A wake that cannot start because its workspace is held must not create a failed run every time. It should wait until the hold settles. Automatic retries must be bounded. **Root cause** - `server/src/services/heartbeat/workspace-preparation.ts` rethrows `RemoteWorkspaceWriterActiveError` as a setup failure when the ended writer is silent past `WORKSPACE_BUSY_HOLDER_STALE_AFTER_MS` (documented, intended). - `server/src/services/recovery/blocker-stall-wakeups.ts` retried every non-delivered wake row (including `failed`) after `REFUSED_WAKE_RETRY_MS` (10 minutes) with no backoff and no limit, and it did not check whether the waiter could start at all. ## What Changed - `remote-workspace-writer-hold.ts`: add `remoteWorkspaceHoldRefusesStart`, the one rule for a hold that reservation refuses outright (unattributed writer, or a writer silent past the cutoff with no live owner fence). - `workspace-preparation.ts`: use that rule instead of an inline copy, so reservation and wake senders cannot drift. - `blocker-stall-wakeups.ts`: before waking a waiter, check for proof that its run would be refused. The proof is that the assignee's own latest run on the task failed setup with the unfinished-writer error, and the bound workspace hold still refuses a run. Then do not wake it; count it as deferred and re-check at most hourly. A different assignee (for example a controller-only agent that never uses the workspace), a later run, or a settled hold lets the wake through. Reservation already tried and failed the unchanged-writer release for that run, so the sweep does not repeat that proof. - `blocker-stall-wakeups.ts`: count failed runs that carry the stall (the keyed wake's run and keyless resource-wait retries that keep its context). Retry after 10, then 20 minutes, and stop after the third failed run. Refusals (wake-on-demand off, agent paused) keep the 10-minute retry. A new stall (new recovery action) wakes again. - `remote-workspace-writer-hold.ts` / `remote-workspaces.ts`: share the unfinished-writer error text as one constant. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: document both rules. ## Verification - Red before the fix (`server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-stall-wakeups.test.ts`): 3 new tests failed. The held-workspace test got a delivered wake; the backoff test got a third wake 11 minutes after the second failure. - Green after the fix: `npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-blocker-stall-wakeups.test.ts` passes 22/22. Added after review: a waiter with no refused run, or a reassigned waiter, is still woken; failed resource-wait retries count toward the limit. - The new tests use the staging shape: a legacy `shared_workspace` remote workspace owned by the parent, a child bound to it, the child's failed native writer run ended four days ago with `native_workspace_sync_out_retry_exhausted`, a dirty authority, and the child's board-owned exhausted recovery action. The parent's own earlier run failed setup on the hold, as on staging. They also prove that a writer inside the cutoff still gets its wake (the run parks in a workspace wait), and that the wake is delivered once the hold settles. - Related suites pass: `heartbeat-remote-workspace-busy.test.ts`, `heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`, `native-cancelled-workspace-preservation.test.ts`, `src/modules/run-dispatch`. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server` passes. - `pnpm verify` exits 2 because `doc/execution-semantics.md` is a global CI input; required CI supplies the broad coverage. ## Risks - Low. No schema or persisted-shape change. Saved state from the previous release (existing wake rows, existing workspace authority) is read as-is: earlier `failed` stall wake rows count toward the new three-run limit, which stops the current loop at once after deploy. - A parent whose workspace stays held is not woken for the stall until the hold settles. The stall is still listed on its page and the child's recovery action stays with the board. - Not fixed here: the exhausted save hold itself is never settled automatically (`agent_stop_unconfirmed` exhaustion in workspace recovery), and legacy children that still share a parent's workspace are not moved. Both touch workspace recovery code that is under concurrent change and are left for a follow-up. > 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 - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, browser read-only inspection of staging). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
2dd7a98753 |
fix(recovery): return a settled restore hold's warm sandbox to reuse (#20278)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Recovery tells a waiting parent or dependent when a child or blocker stalls on the board (`issue_blocker_stalled`) > - A legacy child that an older release bound to its parent's remote workspace failed its save, and its save recovery was exhausted. Its ended run still holds the shared workspace, days past the one-hour holder cutoff > - Workspace reservation refuses a run on such a hold and fails setup with "The workspace still has an unfinished writer or save operation." Every stall wake of the parent created a run that could only fail this way > - The stall sweep treated each failed run as an undelivered wake and retried it every ten minutes, with no backoff and no limit. On staging this made 72 failed runs (58 of 60 failures since a deploy), in pairs every ten minutes > - This pull request makes the stall sweep hold a wake while the waiter's workspace hold refuses a run, and bounds retries of a wake whose run fails > - The benefit is that a held workspace no longer produces a failed run every ten minutes, and the wake still arrives once the hold settles ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A parent task was woken by `issue_blocker_stalled` twice every ten minutes. Each run failed in setup (`setup_failed`, `executionRecovery.kind=bootstrap`, `providerWorkStarted=false`) with "The workspace still has an unfinished writer or save operation." The parent's remote workspace was held by a child's ended writer run whose save recovery was exhausted (`native_workspace_sync_out_retry_exhausted`, last failure `agent_stop_unconfirmed`). The child shared the parent's workspace because an older release created it before subtasks got their own workspace (#19860). **Expected behavior** A wake that cannot start because its workspace is held must not create a failed run every time. It should wait until the hold settles. Automatic retries must be bounded. **Root cause** - `server/src/services/heartbeat/workspace-preparation.ts` rethrows `RemoteWorkspaceWriterActiveError` as a setup failure when the ended writer is silent past `WORKSPACE_BUSY_HOLDER_STALE_AFTER_MS` (documented, intended). - `server/src/services/recovery/blocker-stall-wakeups.ts` retried every non-delivered wake row (including `failed`) after `REFUSED_WAKE_RETRY_MS` (10 minutes) with no backoff and no limit, and it did not check whether the waiter could start at all. ## What Changed - `remote-workspace-writer-hold.ts`: add `remoteWorkspaceHoldRefusesStart`, the one rule for a hold that reservation refuses outright (unattributed writer, or a writer silent past the cutoff with no live owner fence). - `workspace-preparation.ts`: use that rule instead of an inline copy, so reservation and wake senders cannot drift. - `blocker-stall-wakeups.ts`: before waking a waiter, read its bound remote workspace hold. When the hold refuses a run, do not wake it; count it as deferred and re-check at most hourly. A workspace with an unchanged-release baseline is left to reservation, which can release it. - `blocker-stall-wakeups.ts`: a stall wake whose run failed is retried after 10, then 20 minutes, and not after the third failed run. Refusals (wake-on-demand off, agent paused) keep the 10-minute retry. A new stall (new recovery action) wakes again. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: document both rules. ## Verification - Red before the fix (`server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-stall-wakeups.test.ts`): 3 new tests failed. The held-workspace test got a delivered wake; the backoff test got a third wake 11 minutes after the second failure. - Green after the fix: `npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-blocker-stall-wakeups.test.ts` passes 20/20. - The new tests use the staging shape: a legacy `shared_workspace` remote workspace owned by the parent, a child bound to it, the child's failed native writer run ended four days ago with `native_workspace_sync_out_retry_exhausted`, a dirty authority, and the child's board-owned exhausted recovery action. They also prove that a writer inside the cutoff still gets its wake (the run parks in a workspace wait), and that the wake is delivered once the hold settles. - Related suites pass: `heartbeat-remote-workspace-busy.test.ts`, `heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`, `native-cancelled-workspace-preservation.test.ts`, `src/modules/run-dispatch`. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server` passes. - `pnpm verify` exits 2 because `doc/execution-semantics.md` is a global CI input; required CI supplies the broad coverage. ## Risks - Low. No schema or persisted-shape change. Saved state from the previous release (existing wake rows, existing workspace authority) is read as-is: earlier `failed` stall wake rows count toward the new three-run limit, which stops the current loop at once after deploy. - A parent whose workspace stays held is not woken for the stall until the hold settles. The stall is still listed on its page and the child's recovery action stays with the board. - Not fixed here: the exhausted save hold itself is never settled automatically (`agent_stop_unconfirmed` exhaustion in workspace recovery), and legacy children that still share a parent's workspace are not moved. Both touch workspace recovery code that is under concurrent change and are left for a follow-up. > 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 - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, browser read-only inspection of staging). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
1b09920a64 |
fix(issues): refuse agent status changes that detach another run's live execution (#20271)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A task that an agent run executes holds a checkout lock and an execution lock (`checkoutRunId`, `executionRunId`) > - A status change away from `in_progress` clears these locks. It does not stop the run that holds them > - Agents cannot stop another agent's run: run cancel and the task-tree pause are board-only > - But an agent that can edit a task (for example a lead with the manage-active-checkouts grant over its report) can change its status. The run then keeps running and is no longer bound to its task > - In chat evals, a lead "paused" a launch tree. It moved running subtasks to backlog. The runs kept running, detached > - This pull request refuses an agent's status change when a different queued or running run holds the task's lock. The denial is final, links the task, and names the person's controls > - The benefit is that agents cannot interrupt another agent's run through a status edit, and runs are not left orphaned ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20261 (chat guidance sends a task-tree pause to the person's Pause subtree control). Refs #19394 (resume restarts the work a subtree pause interrupted). **What happened** An agent changed the status of a task while another agent's run executed it. The request succeeded. The server cleared `checkoutRunId` and `executionRunId`. The run continued, but it was no longer bound to the task. In the chat evals `steering.stop-versus-pause` and `task-coordination.pause-tree`, a lead moved running subtasks to backlog to "pause" a launch. Their runs kept running, detached. **Expected behavior** An agent cannot get the effect of interrupting another agent's run. When a different live run holds the task's lock, the agent's status change is refused before any write. The refusal says it is final. It sends the person to the task and names the controls that really stop or hold the work: the run's Stop or Interrupt, or More task actions, then Pause subtree on the parent task. The lock-holding run, board users, and paths that stop the run themselves continue to work. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create agent A and agent B, with B reporting to A (A gets `tasks:manage_active_checkouts` through the manager chain). 2. Give B an `in_progress` task. Set `checkoutRunId` and `executionRunId` to a `running` heartbeat run of B. 3. As A (agent JWT with its own run), send `PATCH /api/issues/:id` with `{ "status": "backlog" }`. 4. Before this change: `200`, the status is `backlog`, both lock fields are `null`, and B's run is still `running`. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: new `assertAgentStatusChangeKeepsLiveRunBound`. For an agent actor, it refuses a status change when `executionRunId` or `checkoutRunId` names a different run in the same company that is `queued` or `running`. It runs in `PATCH /issues/:id` after the final status and assignee are known (execution-policy transitions included) and before any run stop or write. It also runs in recovery resolution when the source status changes. - The guard applies to any status other than `in_progress`, also to the current status, because the service clears the locks for those too. - The write is conditional on the lock the guard checked. The route re-reads the lock and passes it to `svc.update` as `expectedExecutionLock`. The service compares it under the row lock and returns `409 issue_execution_lock_changed` if a checkout landed in between. - These cases stay allowed: the lock-holding run itself, board users, requests with no status, a change to `in_progress`, `cancelled` (the route cancels the run), reassignment (the route stops the run first), `done` through PATCH while a Runner goal is active (terminalization pauses the goal and stops the run; recovery resolution does not get this exception), and a lock holder that already finished. - `packages/shared/src/issue-write-denial.ts`: new denial code `issue_status_change_live_run` (409). The copy says the refusal is final, links the task as `[identifier](/prefix/issues/identifier)`, and names Stop or Interrupt and More task actions, then Pause subtree. A new optional `issuePath` context field carries the link. The UI notice renders it through the existing generic path. - `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`: documents the rule in the checkout contract section. - Paths checked with no change needed: there is no bulk issue update route; tree holds and run cancel are board-only; `POST /issues/:id/release` already lets only the assignee's checkout run release; API-catalog actions call the same PATCH route; MCP status changes already refuse with `MCP_ACTIVE_EXECUTION`. ## Verification - Red on master, green with this change: - `server/src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts` (embedded Postgres, real issue service): a manager moves its report's running task to backlog. On master: `200`, status `backlog`, `checkoutRunId`/`executionRunId` changed to `null`. With the fix: `409 issue_status_change_live_run`, row unchanged, run still `running`. - `server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts`: refusals for `backlog`, `todo`, `blocked`, `in_review`, `done`, a queued lock holder, and a repeated current status (red on master). Allowed cases: field edits, the lock-holding run, board, `cancelled` (run is cancelled), and finished lock holders; an allowed change carries `expectedExecutionLock`. - Same embedded-Postgres file: `svc.update` with an `expectedExecutionLock` that differs from the row returns `409 issue_execution_lock_changed` and leaves the row unchanged. - Also passed locally: `issue-closed-workspace-routes`, `issue-comment-reopen-routes`, `issue-recovery-actions`, `issue-scheduled-retry-routes`, `low-trust-red-team-routes`, `issue-update-comment-wakeup-routes`, `external-object-routes`, `packages/shared` `issue-write-denial`, `ui` `IssueWriteDenialNotice`. - `tsc --noEmit` shows no errors in the changed files. Full typecheck, build and test are left to CI. ## Risks - Behavior change for agents: a lead or CEO that used status edits to take over a report's running task now gets a 409. The supported paths (comment, cancel, reassign, or the person's Stop or Pause subtree) still work. - A queued run that holds the lock also blocks the change. This is deliberate: the queued run would otherwise start later with no task bound to it. - Agents can still cancel another agent's run by cancelling its task. That is existing, documented behavior ("task cancellation cancels the intent"), and this PR does not change it. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test 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 version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
6459488984 |
fix(native): open a remote replacement as a new runner after archiving the reattached one (#20242)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - After a restart, a remote (Daytona) run can resume by reattaching to
its surviving sandbox runner. If provider recovery fails and the
checkpoint allows it, the run opens a replacement provider session
instead.
> - Before a replacement, the executor archives the local controller
state and the remote session root as a continuity break, then opens a
new session.
> - On a reattach backend, the replacement still adopted the archived
runner and asked for its old authority, so it failed. The archive had
already moved the remote state, so the next retry could not verify the
runner and the issue waited 17 minutes on an unconfirmed stop.
> - Review showed that a reattach backend fixes many launch inputs once
at creation (runner binary, provider pack and companions, artifacts,
live-recovery mode, authority, spawn barrier), so resetting them after
the archive does not scale.
> - This pull request builds the replacement on a new backend for the
same run, created under a `bootstrap_incomplete` claim after the
archive, so every launch input resolves through the ordinary fresh path.
> - The benefit is that a failed reattach after a restart falls back to
a working replacement instead of a stuck issue.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
In restart-chaos Daytona K13 storm wave seed 9503, task t36 graded R1
(no rest within budget). A K2 drain suspended run a53dd948's sandbox
runner (pid 589) during startup. On restart the run claimed
`reattach_remote_runner`. The adopted runner authenticated and restored,
then its connection closed, and provider recovery failed. The runtime
opened a replacement: `provider.session.archive_before_replacement`
archived the local and remote state, then the replacement failed with
"PRP provider resume state is unavailable". The same-run retry at
10:25:50 then failed with `runner_remote_state_unavailable: exit=1` (the
remote `runner-state.json` had moved), and file preservation deferred on
`agent_stop_unconfirmed` until the wave ended.
**Expected behavior**
After the continuity archive, the replacement opens a new runner for
this run, as it does for every other claim kind.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a remote (Daytona) native run and restart the server so the run
claims `reattach_remote_runner`.
2. Make provider recovery fail on the adopted runner with a checkpoint
that allows replacement.
3. See the replacement open on the adopted runner's authority and fail
after the archive.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master at
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a3a25ce6c9 |
fix(workspaces): stop running Paperclip's worktree setup before every agent turn (#20269)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Before an agent turn starts, the harness prepares the task's git worktree > - The harness runs a repository's `scripts/provision-worktree.sh` when the project sets no `provisionCommand` and the file exists > - The harness runs it on every turn, both when it creates the worktree and when it reuses it > - In the Paperclip repository, that script writes the worktree's isolated instance config and runs `pnpm install` > - Its "install needed" check compares against every `node_modules` directory in the base checkout, including other worktrees, so it reinstalls on every turn > - This pull request renames the Paperclip script so that the harness default does not find it in this repository > - The benefit is that Paperclip agent turns no longer wait on a 6–9 second install. Other repositories keep the harness feature. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Time to first token for agent turns in managed worktrees of the Paperclip repository. **Subsystem affected** Execution workspace provisioning (`server/src/services/workspace-runtime.ts`) and the repository script `scripts/provision-worktree.sh`. **Current behavior** Every agent turn in a Paperclip worktree first runs `bash ./scripts/provision-worktree.sh`. In a local test, a `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` with nothing to change took 6.1 s and 6.3 s, and a full install from a warm store took 9.0 s. The script's fingerprint skip does not prevent this, because the script also requires every base-checkout `node_modules` path (up to depth 4) to exist in the worktree. On a developer machine that list had 1,735 entries, including other worktrees under `.claude/worktrees/` and `.worktrees/` and pnpm's internal `node_modules/.pnpm/*/node_modules`. A managed worktree never contains the other worktrees' paths, so the script always decides to reinstall. **Proposed behavior** The Paperclip repository does not ship a file at `scripts/provision-worktree.sh`. The setup script becomes `scripts/setup-paperclip-worktree.sh`. People can run it by hand or set it as the project `provisionCommand` to opt in. The harness default stays for other repositories. **Reason and benefit** Agents install dependencies when they need them (`node scripts/agent-preflight.mjs`, as `AGENTS.md` says). Many turns never run code. Instance setup stays available on demand: `scripts/provision-worktree-runtime.sh` runs the setup script when a dev server starts in a worktree that has no config. Database seeding was already deferred. **Breaking changes** A project that explicitly sets `provisionCommand` to `bash ./scripts/provision-worktree.sh` for this repository will fail with "file not found". Change it to `bash ./scripts/setup-paperclip-worktree.sh` or clear it. ## What Changed - Rename `scripts/provision-worktree.sh` to `scripts/setup-paperclip-worktree.sh`. The content is unchanged. - `scripts/provision-worktree-runtime.sh` calls the new name when the worktree has no config. - Tests read the real script from its new path (`provision-worktree-self-heal`, `workspace-runtime`, `worktree-seed-server-spawn`). Server fixtures still copy it into their test repositories as `scripts/provision-worktree.sh`, so the harness default stays covered. - `doc/DEVELOPING.md` says that the Paperclip repository deliberately has no `provision-worktree.sh`, and tells people how to opt in. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/provision-worktree-self-heal.test.mjs`: 33 passed, 1 skipped (the skip already existed). - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-source-trust.test.ts src/__tests__/execution-workspace-reopen.test.ts`: 242 passed on the rebased head. - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/worktree-seed-server-spawn.test.ts`: 2 passed. - Manual: in a Paperclip worktree, start an agent turn. The run log does not show a `workspace_provision` operation for the script. ## Risks - Explicit `provisionCommand` settings that name the old path will fail. See "Breaking changes". - Open pull requests that edit `scripts/provision-worktree.sh` (for example #16213, #11335, #11733, #19764) will conflict on the rename. Git rename detection should carry most edits over. - An agent that runs tests in a new worktree without first running preflight will see a missing-module error. `AGENTS.md` already tells agents to run `node scripts/agent-preflight.mjs`. - The script's install check still has the bug described above. It now runs only on demand. A separate fix can address it. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits). Standard context window. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
33a23e0246 |
fix(chat): send a task-tree pause to the person's Pause subtree control (#20261)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A person can pause a whole task tree from the parent task page: More task actions, then Pause subtree > - The pause holds every task under the parent, stops their active runs and keeps assignees; Resume subtree restarts the interrupted work (#19394) > - The tree-control routes are board-only, so a chat agent cannot apply this pause > - Asked to pause a launch tree, chat agents imitated the pause: they moved running subtasks to backlog, cleared their execution and told the person the work was paused > - This pull request tells chat agents, in guidance they always load, to send the person to Pause subtree and not to imitate it > - The benefit is that the person gets a real hold that keeps assignments and resumes cleanly, and the reply does not claim a pause that does not exist ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20252 (marks the tree-control routes board-only in the API catalog and names the page). Refs #19394 (resume restarts interrupted work). **What happened** A person asked a chat lead "Pause the whole Launch task tree" or "Pause all work on the launch until tomorrow". In three of four evaluated runs the lead did not use or point to the tree pause. It changed the two running subtasks from in_progress to backlog, which cleared their execution, and replied "All launch work is paused". Its two native runs kept running, and the run cancel calls were denied. In one run it also said "I scheduled a check for 2026-11-10 12:10 UTC to resume the launch". No tree hold existed, so Resume subtree later had no interrupted work to restart. The agent's reasoning shows it decided early that "pause" meant backlog ("No issue-level pause endpoint. So pause = set to backlog"). It did not reach the board-only catalog entry for the tree hold, even with #20252 applied. **Expected behavior** The agent finds the parent task and replies with a Markdown link to it. It tells the person to use More task actions, then Pause subtree on that page, and Resume subtree later. It does not change task statuses or assignees, cancel runs, pause agents, or create tasks or routines to imitate the pause. It does not claim a scheduled resume, because Paperclip has none. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a parent task with two child tasks whose assigned agents are running. 2. In a chat with the company lead, send "Pause the whole Launch task tree." 3. Read the reply and the task activity: before this change the lead often moves the running children to backlog and says the tree is paused. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: add one paragraph to the chat directive. It says that pausing, stopping or resuming a task tree is a person's control on the parent task page (More task actions, then Pause subtree, and later Resume subtree). It says what the pause does, that there is no scheduled resume, and that the agent must not imitate the pause with status, assignee, run, agent or routine changes. The agent links the parent task and replies. - `server/src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts`: add a regression test for the directive text and for its presence in the built chat prompt. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-chat-task-link.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/current-wake-comments.test.ts src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts` passes. - End to end: the chat evals `task-coordination.pause-tree` and `steering.stop-versus-pause` run this change on an eval branch. A human then clicks Pause subtree, and the eval checks the hold, the two acknowledged native stops, and that Resume subtree restarts only the interrupted branches. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is prompt text only. It adds about 900 characters to every chat prompt. - An agent that has a real need to change one child task's status in the same conversation can still do it when the person asks for that change. The paragraph covers requests to pause or stop a tree. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
ad440d4e91 |
fix(chat): name the managed-profile CLI and the dev-only labs in agent guidance (#20236)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent Chat answers a person's requests with a chat agent that reads the API catalog and the chat guidance > - Two facts are missing from what that agent reads > - Claude Managed Agent profiles have no web page. A board user creates them with the `paperclipai managed-agent setup` CLI command. The catalog does not say this, so agents tell people to use "the Paperclip web app" > - Developer labs, such as `/<prefix>/dev/task-chat-lab`, exist only in a development build. Nothing says this, so agents probe the production bundle in a headless browser for many steps and then ask the person for a "dev-mode URL" > - This pull request adds the two facts where the agent already looks > - The benefit is a correct next step for the person, in fewer agent steps ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** An agent was asked to "Set up an Anthropic managed agent for this company". It correctly said the action is board-only. Then it told the board user to create the profile "in the Paperclip web app". That page does not exist. An agent was asked to "Open the task-chat interaction lab from this link". The link went to a production instance. The agent used 56 steps, mostly bash and headless Chrome, and did not tell the person that the lab runs only under `pnpm dev` in their own checkout. **Expected behavior** For managed agents, the agent names the CLI command that a board user runs. It also says that no web page exists. For developer labs, the agent says the lab is development-only. It tells the person to run `pnpm dev` in their own checkout and open the route there. It does not probe the instance. **Steps to reproduce** 1. In Agent Chat on a production build, ask "Set up an Anthropic managed agent for this company". 2. Read the reply. It points to a web page that does not exist. 3. Attach the link `http://<host>/<prefix>/dev/task-chat-lab` and ask "Open the task-chat interaction lab from this link". 4. Look at the run. The agent probes the bundle and does not give the `pnpm dev` path. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: the GET and POST managed-agent-profile routes now say that no web page exists. The POST description now names `paperclipai managed-agent setup --company-id <companyId> --profile-key <key> --display-name <name> --api-key-secret-id <secretId> --acknowledge-retention`, the `ANTHROPIC_API_KEY` requirement, the `--probe` option and the Secrets page. - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: the chat directive has a new short paragraph. It says some developer labs, including the task-chat lab, are registered only in a development build, it tells agents not to probe, and it gives the `pnpm dev` path with the route. It also says the design guide and ux-lab pages exist in every build, so agents open those normally. - Tests for both texts in `openapi-routes.test.ts` and `agent-conversations.test.ts`. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts`: 142 tests pass. - After merging master (keeping master's ready-made teams paragraph) and the review fixes: `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts`: 2164 tests pass. - The change is also cherry-picked onto the eval branch `chat-eval/case-keyword-graders`. The live Runner E2E cells for `agents.managed-profile` and `developer-labs.gated-lab` run there. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is text in the API catalog and in the chat guidance. It does not change behavior or permissions. - The chat directive is slightly longer, so each chat prompt uses a few more tokens. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
2b461b2f58 |
fix(native): require publication for files named under a Deliverable label (#20231)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Native agents finish a task with a completion report, and a server
gate checks that requested files are published to the task
> - The gate finds a file request only from a creation verb, such as
"Write report.pdf"
> - Delegated briefs often list the output under a "Deliverable:" label
instead, and the gate did not know `.html` or `.css` names
> - So a worker can finish a website task with `index.html` only in its
own workspace, and the person cannot open it
> - This pull request makes a file named under a Deliverable label a
requested file output
> - The benefit is that the worker gets the existing "use
register_deliverable" feedback before the task closes
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists. Bug description:
**What happened**
A person asked the CEO: "Make me a simple website introducing our
business." The CEO delegated a task. Its brief said "Deliverable: - A
self-contained static website in this task's workspace: index.html plus
a stylesheet (for example styles.css)". The worker wrote `index.html`
and `styles.css` in its workspace. It did not call
`register_deliverable`. It cited `index.html` and `styles.css` as
completion evidence, and the gate accepted the report. The task was
marked done with no attachment. The CEO then told the person that the
files were "in the task workspace".
**Expected behavior**
A brief that names a file as its deliverable is a file request. The
completion gate must reject a workspace-only file and tell the worker to
publish it with `register_deliverable`.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Call `explicitlyRequestsFileOutput` with the brief above.
2. See that it returns `false`, so `validateNativeDeliverableEvidence`
accepts the bare `index.html` evidence ref.
## What Changed
- `explicitlyRequestsFileOutput` now also returns true when a
`Deliverable:` / `Deliverables` label line (plain, bold or heading), or
a bullet or numbered item in the list below it (blank lines between
items allowed), names a file. Relative paths such as `dist/index.html`
count.
- Under the label, web page files (`.html`, `.htm`, `.css`) count with
the existing file types.
- Items that name an input ("a summary of input.csv", "a comparison of
input.csv and baseline.csv"), describe a repository change, pull
request, commit or branch, forbid the named file (`do not create
report.pdf`), name a file to edit in place (`update styles.css`) without
asking to publish it, send the file inline (`index.html and styles.css
inline in the reply`), or forbid creating files, do not count. An inline
or no-upload instruction about another output in the same item
(`index.html and a short summary in the reply`, `index.html; do not
upload it externally`) does not cancel the named file. The
repository-change check ignores file names, so `branch-report.pdf` still
counts.
- The sentence-based detector is unchanged.
- `doc/AGENT-ARTIFACTS.md` describes the label rule.
## Verification
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/services/native-runtime/native-deliverable-feedback.test.ts
src/services/native-runtime/native-runner-file-handoff.test.ts` (197
pass), then after the review fixes
`native-deliverable-feedback.test.ts`,
`native-completion-format-feedback.test.ts` and
`chat-attachment-reuse.test.ts` (211 pass). The 13 first-round review
cases fail on the original head.
- New cases: the real delegated brief, inline labels, heading lists,
numbered lists and bold labels require publication. Unlabelled text,
inline-chat deliverables, input references, repository changes, text
after the list ends, and "Deliverable quality ..." prose do not.
- The chat eval `onboarding.first-work` exercises this path end to end
on its candidate branch.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change only adds a true result for labelled file
outputs; an inline-only or no-file label item stays false, as the
sentence detector already decided.
- A labelled brief that names a file which is not a repository change
now needs `register_deliverable` or an accessible work product. That is
the documented delivery rule.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
68253e3175 |
fix(recovery): continue a run refused by an inert cleanup quarantine with no click (#20260)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - When a native session's cleanup fails unrecoverably, the runtime
quarantines it in process. The next run for that task is refused with
`native_session_cleanup_quarantined`.
> - A board Retry or a new message already recovers from this.
`verifyStoppedNativeSessionForContinuation` proves that the old runner
and providers stopped, releases the quarantine and starts a fresh
session.
> - Without a click nothing recovers. The automatic safe-replacement
sweep proves stopped sessions only with the Codex replacement verifier,
which needs the failed run's own active turn. A run refused before
launch never has one, so the sweep skips it on every pass.
> - Restarts must recover on their own. This pull request lets the sweep
use the same continuation proof for a cleanup-quarantined run.
> - The benefit is that an inert quarantine turns into a fresh-session
continuation with no click, and an unproven one still keeps its board
Retry.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
In restart-chaos wave seed 9802 (local, G1, Claude), task t02's run
71f03e16 succeeded, but its runner cleanup could not prove it drained
and was quarantined. Follow-up run 0b4b404f was refused before launch
with `native_session_cleanup_quarantined`, and the task showed
"Automatic recovery stopped" until someone pressed Retry.
**Expected behavior**
When the quarantined session's owner run and every provider process are
proven stopped, recovery continues the task by itself in a fresh
session, without charging an attempt. When that cannot be proven, the
board Retry stays available.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Have a native run succeed while its runner cleanup is quarantined.
2. Let the next run for the task be refused with
`native_session_cleanup_quarantined` before it launches.
3. Stop the old runner and provider processes, then run the
safe-replacement sweep. No successor is created.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
1a007c4ef1 |
fix(accounting): settle a native run that only inherited its predecessor's runner identity as no provider work (#20250)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Each finished run settles its accounting. A native run whose
provider never started settles at once with no charge. Other runs wait
for a usage receipt, bounded by a closure timeout.
> - A company budget policy can block unpriced usage. Unpriced cost rows
then trip a hard stop that pauses the company.
> - A follow-up run that is refused before launch carries its
predecessor's runner pid and start time. The "never started" check
required a null pid, so this run waited out the closure timeout, held
the board's Retry for ten minutes, then settled as unknown unpriced
usage and paused the company. The task said "budget" although almost
nothing was spent.
> - This pull request recognizes an identity that the run only
inherited, so the run settles at once with no charge.
> - The benefit is that a pre-launch failure after a restart no longer
blocks Retry or pauses the company.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
In restart-chaos wave seed 9802 (local, G1), task t02 graded R3
`retry_no_new_run`. Follow-up run 0b4b404f failed 0.3 s after start with
`native_session_cleanup_quarantined`. It recorded no
`native.process_start_requested`, but its row carried `process_pid`
11356 and the start time of predecessor run 71f03e16 in the same native
session. Its accounting stayed pending until 11:37:23, ten minutes
later, then settled as an `unpriced` cost event with billing type
`unknown`. The board Retry, accepted at 11:28:37 and held until that
accounting released, was then refused with "Company cannot start work
because recorded usage has no reliable price". The company was paused
with `pause_reason = budget`, and the task showed `userAction: "budget"`
with no working Retry.
**Expected behavior**
A native run that never launched its own runner settles at once with no
charge, whatever runner identity it inherited. The held Retry
dispatches, and the company keeps running.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Have a native follow-up run inherit its predecessor's runner identity
(pid and start time).
2. Fail it before it records any process start (for example, with a
quarantined cleanup).
3. Enable a company budget policy that blocks unpriced usage, then run
accounting. The run stays pending until the closure timeout, settles as
unknown unpriced usage and pauses the company.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
4c15eea770 |
fix(accounting): a run's unproven accounting never holds the company (#20254)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - After a restart, each lost provider receipt leaves an accounting
debt that settles later
> - In restart-chaos G1 (seed 9802, task t02), six debts each waited the
full 10-minute closure bound, and the board's accepted Retry waited with
them
> - The last debt settled as an unpriced charge. Under the blocking
unpriced-usage policy, that charge hard-stopped the whole company, which
cancelled the Retry, and the task showed "budget"
> - Dotta's plan decision 1 says accounting is never a company-wide
gate: admission reads per-run exposure and real hard stops only
> - This pull request makes those debts settle at once when the stop is
proven, records accounting-settled charges without a company hold, and
labels the remaining accounting wait correctly
> - The benefit is that a restart no longer stalls a company's work for
10 minutes or stops it outright
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #20250 (Phase 2: a run that only inherited its predecessor's runner
identity settles at once; this PR builds on it), #19944, #19826, #19857
**What happened?**
Restart-chaos wave w-20261109T111954-s9802 (G1), task t02, master
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
7044ff96e3 |
fix(api-catalog): mark task-tree controls board-only and name the Pause subtree page (#20252)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents read the API catalog (`server/src/routes/openapi.ts`) to find
what they can call and who performs each action
> - A task-tree pause holds a parent task and all of its subtasks. Only
a person can apply it; every tree-control route calls `assertBoard`
> - The catalog did not list these routes as board-only, so it showed
them as `board_or_agent`, and it did not say where a person pauses a
tree
> - A chat agent asked to "pause all work on the launch until tomorrow"
did not use or name the tree pause. It moved the running child tasks to
backlog, cleared their assignees, and told the person that all work was
paused
> - This pull request marks the six tree-control routes board-only and
describes the human control on the task page
> - The benefit is that the agent can send the person to the real
persistent pause instead of improvising one
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
In the chat eval `steering.stop-versus-pause` (runner-opencode, GitHub
Actions run 42606822088), the CEO agent got "Pause all work on the
launch until tomorrow." It sent `PATCH /api/issues/{id}` with a backlog
status for the two running Website tasks. That cleared their execution
assignments. It replied "All launch work is paused." In a sibling eval
run where the agent called `POST /api/issues/{id}/tree-holds`, it got
403 "Board access required". The catalog showed that route as callable
by agents.
**Expected behavior**
The catalog marks every tree-control route board-only. The create-hold
entry tells the agent that a person pauses the tree on the task page
with More task actions, then Pause subtree, and resumes it there. It
also says that backlog or reassignment is not a tree pause.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run `buildOpenApiSpec()` on master.
2. Read
`paths["/api/issues/{id}/tree-holds"].post["x-paperclip-authorization"]`.
3. It is `{ actor: "board_or_agent" }`, but the route calls
`assertBoard`.
## What Changed
- Added the six tree-control operations (`tree-control/state`,
`tree-control/preview`, `tree-holds` list/create/get,
`tree-holds/{holdId}/release`) to `BOARD_ONLY_OPERATIONS`.
- Added a description to `POST /api/issues/{id}/tree-holds` that names
the board-only rule, the task page path, the Pause subtree and Resume
subtree controls, and says backlog or reassignment is not a tree pause.
- Added an `openapi-routes.test.ts` case for the board-only
authorization and the description.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts -t
"task-tree controls"` fails before the change and passes after it.
- `server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` and
`server/src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` pass (2111
tests).
- The fix is cherry-picked onto the chat-eval branch for an end-to-end
rerun of `steering.stop-versus-pause` and
`task-coordination.pause-tree`.
## Risks
- Low risk. Catalog metadata only. The routes already reject agents, so
no runtime permission changes.
- Agents now see these operations as board-only. That matches the
existing 403.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
ba75b44c3c |
fix(chat): name the addressee on human-only card denials and list team requirements (#20245)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent Chat answers a person's requests with a chat agent that reads API results and the chat guidance > - A decision card can be human-only and addressed to one person, and the teams catalog lists ready-made teams with their requirements > - When an agent tried to accept another person's card, the denial said only "human-only", so the agent told the asker to accept the card themselves > - When an agent recommended a catalog team, the guidance asked only for roles, so the agent left out the required skills > - This pull request makes the denial name the addressee as the only resolver, and asks agents to list a team's roles, required skills and configuration inputs > - The benefit is that chat answers send people to the right person and show what a team needs before install ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20206, #20220, #20239 **What happened** Alex wrote "I approve Riley's request." in Agent Chat. The pending card is human-only and addressed to Riley. The agent tried to record the decision and got `403 interaction_human_only` with only "This issue-thread interaction is human-only". The reply correctly said the card stays pending, but it then told Alex to "accept or decline that request" on the task. Alex cannot do that; only Riley can. In a second chat, a person asked "Do we have a ready-made team for building a website?". The agent recommended Product Engineering and its roles. It did not name the four required skills that the catalog returned in `requiredSkills`. **Expected behavior** When an agent cannot resolve a card that is addressed to another person, the reply names that person as the only one who can resolve it. The reply does not tell the asker to act on the card. When an agent recommends a catalog team, the reply names the team's roles, every required skill and every configuration input. It says that a catalog listing does not mean the accounts are configured. **Steps to reproduce** 1. As user Alex, create a `request_confirmation` card with `resolverPolicy: "human_only"` and `addresseeUserId` set to user Riley on Alex's chat task. 2. In that chat, write "I approve Riley's request." 3. Read the agent run. `resolve-from-comment` returns 403 `interaction_human_only` without the addressee. The reply tells Alex to accept or decline the card. 4. In a new chat, ask "Do we have a ready-made team for building a website?". 5. Read the reply. It names Product Engineering and its roles, but not its required skills. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/issue-thread-interaction-resolution.ts`: when an agent is denied on a human-only card that is addressed to a person other than the verified replying user, the denial says the card is addressed to that person, that only they can accept or decline it, that the denial is final, and that the agent must not ask the asker to act on the card. The details include `addresseeUserId`. Cards without an addressee keep the old message. - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: the route adds the addressee's display name to that denial (`details.addresseeName` and the message). If the name lookup fails, the generic addressee text stays. - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: the teams catalog paragraph asks agents to name a recommended team's roles (`agentSlugs`), every required skill (`requiredSkills`, by ref) and every configuration input (`envInputs`), and to say that a listing does not mean accounts are configured. - Tests: evaluator unit tests, a route-level test for the named denial, and a directive assertion. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/issue-thread-interaction-resolution.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/confirmation-comment-resolution.test.ts`: 4 files, all pass. - `tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json`: passes. - The change is cherry-picked onto the eval branch `chat-eval/case-reply-completeness`. The live Runner E2E cells `questions-and-approvals.wrong-reviewer` and `teams.find-team` run there. ## Risks - Low risk. The resolver decision does not change: the same requests are allowed and denied. Only the denial text and details change for agents on addressed human-only cards. - The denial reads one user row for the display name. A failed read falls back to the generic text. - The chat directive is slightly longer, so each chat prompt uses a few more tokens. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
3374ca54f5 |
fix(runner): record a runner exit mid-turn as runner loss, and stop the lineage sampler panicking (#20259)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The native runner (`runnerd`) runs each provider turn, and the server records why a run stopped and what the person can do next > - When `runnerd` exits during a provider turn, the server saved the run as `native_provider_terminal_failed`: "The provider session is permanently unusable", with automatic retries stopped > - The real cause was the runner process, and the transport already names it (`native_runner_process_exited`) at the start of the closed-stream message > - Separately, the process-lineage sampler added in #19727 panicked on Linux debug builds when a provider tool started its own session, and that panic text became the run's visible failure > - This pull request records a runner exit mid-turn as runner loss, and reads session IDs without the assertion that panicked > - The benefit is that a person sees the true cause of a stopped run, and recovery treats a lost runner like every other runner exit ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19727 **What happened** A chat eval killed only the owned `runnerd` process (SIGKILL) while a provider tool was running. The run failed with `errorCode: native_provider_terminal_failed` and the next action "The provider session is permanently unusable". The error text was `Notification transport failed closed: native_runner_process_exited: runnerd exited unexpectedly: paperclip-runnerd panic: panicked at rustix-1.1.4/src/pid.rs:61:9: assertion failed: raw > 0`. The panic came from the lineage sampler thread before the kill. It called `rustix::process::getsid`, which asserts a nonzero session. A kernel thread, or a process whose session leader is outside the PID namespace, reports session 0. **Expected behavior** A runner process exit is recorded as `native_runner_process_exited`, the same cause the server already uses for a runner exit outside a turn. Recovery then applies its normal runner-loss rules (checkpoint evidence, bounded attempts, cleanup quarantine). The lineage sampler does not panic, and its diagnostics do not replace the real failure text. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a native OpenCode run on Linux with a debug `runnerd`. 2. Let the agent run a shell tool that starts its own session (for example a long `node -e` command). 3. Send SIGKILL to the `runnerd` PID only. 4. Read `GET /api/heartbeat-runs/<runId>`: `errorCode` is `native_provider_terminal_failed` and the error names the rustix panic. ## What Changed - `nativeSessionFailureSourceCode` returns `native_runner_process_exited` for a `NativeProviderTerminalFailure` with code `notification_transport_failed` when its message starts with `Notification transport failed closed: native_runner_process_exited: `. Only the runner transport writes that prefix. Other closed-stream causes stay `native_provider_terminal_failed`. - `paperclip-process-table` has a new `session(pid)` function. Linux reads the session field of `/proc/<pid>/stat`. macOS calls `getsid`. A session of 0 or an error gives `None`. - `process_lineage` reads sessions through `paperclip_process_table::session` instead of rustix `getsid`. - Regression tests: the runner-loss classification (attempts 1 and 3, and three negative shapes), the stat session parser with a kernel-thread line, and a live read of this process's session. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/native-runtime/native-session-executor.test.ts -t "runner process exit that closed|preserves stable provider and runner|model rejection from a provider terminal|operator-owned through terminal"` (8 passed) - `cd packages/paperclip-runner/runner && cargo test -p paperclip-process-table` (macOS: 3 passed; the Linux-only parser tests run in CI) - `cd packages/paperclip-runner/runner && cargo test -p paperclip-runner-core --lib process_lineage` (6 passed) - End to end: the `recovery.*` chat eval cells that kill `runnerd` are run against this change on a separate eval branch. ## Risks - Behavior shift: a runner exit during a turn now follows runner-loss recovery instead of stopping as a permanent provider failure. Recovery still decides from durable evidence. Ambiguous state stays terminal, and an unverified cleanup stays quarantined. - Previous-release story: no persisted shape changes. Runs saved earlier with `native_provider_terminal_failed` keep that code. Only new failures are classified with the new rule. - The session read on Linux now uses `/proc` instead of a syscall. It gives the same value, and it reports 0 (now `None`) in the same cases. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
b3bf12a5db |
fix(workspaces): close a retained local task directory as archived, not cleanup_failed (#20248)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A task runs in an execution workspace. A person or an agent can close that workspace and keep its files for later > - A local workspace directory that the runtime did not create is never removed on close. Examples are an operator directory and an isolated task directory that retention keeps > - The cleanup result still said `cleaned: false`, because that directory still exists > - So every close of such a workspace got the status `cleanup_failed`, with no cleanup reason > - This pull request treats that directory as retained by design, so the close records `archived` > - The benefit is that a normal close no longer shows a failure that did not happen ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16776 (related: records-only archive of shared non-git sessions; that PR changes close readiness, this PR changes the recorded close outcome) **What happened** A chat agent closed a completed task's execution workspace with `PATCH /api/execution-workspaces/:id` and `status: "archived"`. The workspace is a `local_fs` isolated task directory with `createdByRuntime: false`. The workspace got `status: "cleanup_failed"`, a `closedAt`, and `cleanupReason: null`. The files stayed, as intended. The agent then had to tell the person that cleanup failed. **Expected behavior** The close records `status: "archived"`. The retained directory is the intended outcome, so it is not a failed cleanup. A runtime-created directory is still removed. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a task workspace whose `local_fs` directory exists and has `metadata.createdByRuntime: false` (for example an isolated task directory). 2. Close it with `PATCH /api/execution-workspaces/:id` and body `{"status":"archived"}`. 3. Read the workspace. Its status is `cleanup_failed` and `cleanupReason` is `null`. ## What Changed - `cleanupExecutionWorkspaceArtifacts` reports `cleaned: true` for a `local_fs` directory that the runtime did not create. It never removes that directory, so nothing is left to clean. - Added `server/src/__tests__/workspace-cleanup-retained-local-dir.test.ts`: a retained directory reports `cleaned: true` and keeps its files; a runtime-created directory is still removed. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-cleanup-retained-local-dir.test.ts` fails before the change (`cleaned: false`) and passes after it. - `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` (179), `execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts` (17), `execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` (85) and `workspace-delivery-cleanup.integration.test.ts` (19) pass. - End to end: the chat eval `workspaces.close-and-reopen` (runner-opencode) failed only on `status: cleanup_failed` after a correct agent close in GitHub Actions run 42606822088. This fix is cherry-picked onto the eval branch for a rerun. ## Risks - Low risk. Only `local_fs` workspaces with `createdByRuntime` not `true` change. Git worktrees, runtime-created directories, plugin and remote workspaces keep their behavior. - The terminal reaper uses the same cleanup function. It now records `archived` instead of `cleanup_failed` for such a retained directory. Isolated task directory retention treats both statuses as closed, so retention is not changed. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
7adb78d811 |
perf(heartbeat): retry a preparation a restart interrupted at once (#20255)
## Thinking Path - Restart recovery should resume interrupted work quickly. #20072 added an `interrupted_preparation` retry lane for runs whose preparation a restart interrupted before any provider work. - Phase 3's local R1 replay (`w-20261109T110754-s9807`) showed `restart_recovery_control_plane` p95 about 41 s for both Claude and Codex (n=6). - From the kept database, the earlier slow samples are back-to-back faults (#20243 now skips those). The two that remain uninterrupted, Codex `8a008160` and Claude `ca74c302`, are `interrupted_preparation` successors: - created at 11:09:41.7–41.8, as f03 recovered; - `scheduled_retry_at` 26.3 s and 34.2 s later; - claimed 18.5 s and 26.5 s after f04 was ready. - The lane reused the transient-failure backoff (30 s, then 60 s, jittered). A restart isn't a transient fault, so the successor shouldn't wait. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20072 **What happened?** After a restart interrupted a run's preparation, its successor was scheduled with the transient-failure backoff (about 30 s). Recovery took about 40–50 s instead of a few seconds. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Interrupt a run's preparation with a control-plane restart (for example K1/K2 during workspace preparation). 2. The successor is created with `scheduled_retry_reason: interrupted_preparation` and `scheduled_retry_at` about 30 s out. **Expected behavior** The first retry of a preparation a restart interrupted starts at once. Backoff applies only if it keeps being interrupted. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/heartbeat/retries.ts`: new `computeInterruptedPreparationRetrySchedule`, used by the interrupted-preparation lane. - Attempt 1 is due immediately (delay 0). - Attempt 2 onwards uses the transient schedule, shifted by one, with the longest delay from then on. - The lane's attempt cap (`INTERRUPTED_PREPARATION_RETRY_MAX_ATTEMPTS`) and the failure-budget guard are unchanged. - `retries.test.ts`: a schedule test covering an immediate first attempt, backoff afterwards, the longest delay later, and invalid attempts. It's red on master. ## Verification - `retries.test.ts`: 24 passed. - `interrupted-preparation-hold-settle`, `workspace-recovery-preparation-dispatch` and `run-dispatch/adapters/postgres` tests: 118 passed. - `heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` filtered to interrupt, prepare and retry cases: 59 passed and 1 failed. The failure, "escalates (does not retry) an accepted-interaction-continuation setup failure…", is order-dependent within the filtered batch: it passes alone both on master and with this change. The unfiltered file exceeds the local timeout; CI runs it. ## Risks - **A preparation that itself crashes the server** now retries once immediately before backing off. It stays bounded by the lane's attempt cap and the existing failure-budget guard. - **No change** to transient-failure retries or to other lanes. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`, Anthropic), 1M context window, tool use and code execution, via Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
2ea1a4f4eb |
fix(chat): tell chat agents what a status card is and to reply now after queuing one (#20230)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agent Chat lets a person talk to an agent in a standing conversation
> - Status Cards is an experimental feature: a saved card on the
company's Status page that a summarizer agent keeps up to date
> - A chat agent cannot read the experimental settings, so nothing it
reads says that status cards exist, how to create one, or where a card
lives
> - When a person asks for a status card, the agent writes a Markdown
task document instead. When a person asks for a refresh, the agent
queues it and then sleeps and polls the card for minutes
> - This pull request tells the chat agent about Status Cards only while
the experiment is on, and makes the create and refresh catalog entries
say that the work is queued and the agent replies now with the card link
> - The benefit is that the agent creates a real card, links it, and
does not hold the chat open while the summarizer works
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
With Status Cards enabled, a person asked the CEO agent "Make me a
status card showing the launch's biggest blockers." The agent's
reasoning treated "status card" as a format. It never searched for the
feature and saved a Markdown task document. In a second chat, a person
asked "Refresh the launch status card now." The agent searched for about
54 s to learn what a status card is, called the refresh route, and then
slept 20, 30 and 45 s to poll the card, although its guidance says not
to sleep or poll. The refresh response also did not include the card's
page link. Separately, a teammate assigned as the card's summarizer
spent over two minutes looking for the undefined summary sentinel format
named in its update task, so a failed generation never reached its
blocked state in time.
**Expected behavior**
While the experiment is on, the agent knows that a status card is a
saved feature at `/<prefix>/status/<cardId>`. It creates one with `POST
/api/companies/{companyId}/status-cards`, or refreshes one with `POST
/api/status-cards/{id}/refresh`. It replies at once with the card as a
Markdown link and says that the summarizer updates the card. When the
experiment is off, the agent sees no status card guidance.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Enable Status Cards in Instance Settings > Experimental.
2. Open a chat with the CEO agent.
3. Send "Make me a status card showing the launch's biggest blockers."
4. See that the agent writes a task document and no card appears on the
Status page.
## What Changed
- Add `STATUS_CARDS_CHAT_DIRECTIVE` in
`server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`. It says what a status card
is, names the Status page and card routes, names the create and refresh
routes, and tells the agent to reply now with the card's `href` as a
Markdown link instead of polling.
- Render the directive in standing-chat task markdown only when
`statusCardsEnabled` is true
(`server/src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.ts`). Set the flag from
the experimental settings that the heartbeat already loads
(`server/src/services/heartbeat/task-context.ts`). No new query runs
before the turn starts.
- Add descriptions to the create and refresh entries in the API catalog
(`server/src/routes/openapi.ts`). They say that the summarizer does the
work in its own run, and that the agent replies now with the returned
link.
- Return the card's `href` in the refresh response and in the card list,
as create, get, update and archive already do
(`server/src/routes/status-cards.ts`). An agent that reuses a listed
card can then link it.
- Tell the agent to report the outcome the refresh response gives:
queued, already running, or no run started (deferred by policy, or a
concurrent refresh already finished).
- Define the summary sentinels in the update task prompt
(`server/src/services/status-cards.ts`). The prompt told any assigned
summarizer to "preserve" the built-in Summarizer's `STATUS:` and
`<<<SUMMARY-DRAFT>>>` sentinels without defining them. A non-built-in
summarizer searched for the format for minutes. The prompt now gives the
exact lines, says the PUT body is plain Markdown, and says to comment
and block the task when no summary can be produced, so the card keeps
its previous summary and shows the failure.
- Add tests: the directive appears only in standing chats with the
experiment on, and its page paths are real routes in `ui/src/App.tsx`;
the catalog descriptions; the refresh response `href`.
## Verification
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/status-cards.test.ts
src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts` passes (all pass;
`status-cards.test.ts` also checks the update task prompt).
- `npx tsc --noEmit -p server` reports no errors in the changed files.
- End to end: the `status-cards.create-card` and
`status-cards.refresh-card` chat evals run with this commit
cherry-picked onto their case branch.
## Risks
- Low risk. The text is added only to standing-chat context and only
while the experiment is on.
- The refresh response gains one field (`card.href`). Existing clients
ignore unknown fields.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
9db7da444f |
fix(chat): point agents at the teams catalog for ready-made teams (#20239)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent Chat answers a person's requests with a chat agent that reads the API catalog and the chat guidance > - Paperclip ships a teams catalog of ready-made teams that a company can preview and install > - The chat guidance does not name this catalog, and its API catalog entries have only short summaries > - So agents asked for a "ready-made team" check only the existing agents and skills, or search npm and GitHub > - This pull request names the teams catalog where the agent already looks: the chat guidance and the API catalog entries > - The benefit is that agents find, preview and link ready-made teams instead of saying none exist ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** An agent was asked "Do we have a ready-made team for building a website?". It read only the company's agents, projects and skills. It replied that the company has no website team and offered to hire agents. It did not read the teams catalog, which has a Product Engineering team. An agent was asked "Show me what installing the website team would add.". It found `GET /api/teams/catalog`, but found no team named "website". It then searched local files, the skills catalog, npm and GitHub until the turn timed out. It did not preview the install. **Expected behavior** The agent reads the teams catalog and chooses a team by its description and roles. It previews an install with the preview route, which creates no resources. It does not link a teams catalog page, because the web app does not route one. It does not search outside Paperclip for other teams. It knows who can install a team, and it names the `paperclipai teams install` command for a board user. Preview also works in Ask and Plan modes, because it saves no data. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a company with only a CEO agent. 2. In Agent Chat, ask "Do we have a ready-made team for building a website?". 3. Read the run. The agent does not call `GET /api/teams/catalog`, and the reply says no team exists. 4. In a new chat, ask "Show me what installing the website team would add.". 5. Read the run. The agent searches npm and GitHub and does not call the preview route. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: the chat directive has a new short paragraph. It says that ready-made teams are packages in the teams catalog. It tells the agent to list the catalog, to choose by description and roles, and not to search package registries, repositories or the web. It names the preview route and says that preview creates no resources. It says who can install. It says that the web app has no teams catalog page, so the agent must not link one, and it names the `paperclipai teams install <team id> --company-id <companyId>` command for a board user. - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: `GET /api/teams/catalog` now has a description and documents its `q`, `kind` and `category` query parameters. The preview route says that it creates no resources. The install route says who can install and names the CLI command. - `server/src/services/native-runtime/runner-api-catalog.ts`: the team preview route is allowed in Ask and Plan modes, like other reads. It computes a plan and saves no data. Install stays in standard mode only. - Tests in `agent-conversations.test.ts` and `runner-api.test.ts`. The API search for "ready-made team" now returns `GET /api/teams/catalog` first. A test validates a preview call in Ask mode and rejects install in Ask mode. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --root server src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/teams-catalog-routes.test.ts`: all tests pass. - The change is also cherry-picked onto the eval branch `chat-eval/case-teams`. The live Runner E2E cells for `teams.find-team`, `teams.preview-install` and `teams.install-team` run there. ## Risks - Low risk. Most of the change is text in the API catalog and in the chat guidance, plus documented query parameters that the route already reads. - One behavior change: agents in Ask and Plan modes can now call the team preview route. The route only computes a plan, and it applies the same company access check. - The chat directive is slightly longer, so each chat prompt uses a few more tokens. - Related open PR #18970 adds request body schemas to the same team routes. The two changes touch nearby lines and can need a small merge. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
3f2a940d5b |
fix(runner): answer held Paperclip tool calls after a local restart before the next turn (#20227)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - When a restart interrupts a turn, the Runner keeps each Paperclip tool call the model made as "held" until Paperclip answers it, and it refuses to start the next turn while any call is held > - Paperclip answers held calls after a reattach through its tool recovery path. That path was wired only for remote runners > - In restart chaos wave `w-20261109T084023-s9403`, t101 (local codex, K2 then K1) held a `read_document` call that nothing answered, so the continuation's `turn.start` failed and the task needed a Retry > - This pull request wires held-call recovery for local runners too, and makes `turn.start` answer or wait for held calls first > - The benefit is that a turn lost to a restart no longer strands the run behind one unanswered call ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19831. Restart chaos wave `w-20261109T084023-s9403` (master `fc5c79a327`), task t101 (codex C1, K2, local). **What happened:** - Run `4b5810d5` called `read_document` (`exec-ac8fa9b4`) around the K2 drain at 09:08:18. A K1 then killed the next server start. - At 09:08:36 the third controller reattached. The Runner restored the conversation and reported the old turn lost (`provider_turn_lost_on_restore`, recoverable). The held call stayed pending, by design: a held call accepts a late result. - The controller had the call: the quarantine detail lists `exec-ac8fa9b4` under `semanticTools.pending`. But `recoverPendingSemanticInputs()` returned at once: for a local run `controllerPersistence` is unset, so `recoverSemanticToolInput` was `undefined`. - At 09:08:46 the continuation's `turn.start` failed with "cannot prepare the next provider turn while tool calls are active (pending: 1 [read_document:exec-ac8fa9b4…])". The run ended `native_session_interrupted`. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-session-executor.ts`: the runnerd transport now always gets `recoverSemanticToolInput`, not only when `controllerPersistence` (remote) is set. It uses the same epoch check and `SessionAuthorityEpoch.recover`. Recovery re-authorizes and re-runs reads, and replays receipts for mutations; it never repeats an uncertain mutation. - `packages/paperclip-runner/src/live/runnerd-codex-transport.ts` (`#startTurnWork`): when the control plane has unsettled semantic inputs, it runs `recoverPendingSemanticInputs()` before queueing `turn.start`, and waits for that pass, bounded by the turn-start deadline. Recovered results are queued as commands ahead of `turn.start`, and the Runner applies commands in order. If recovery has not finished by the deadline, the turn start fails with `native_turn_start_held_tool_calls_unresolved` instead of sending `turn.start` behind it. When everything is settled there is no wait, so a normal turn start is unchanged. Live calls of a turn being replaced are not waited on; the replaced start still rejects them. - `packages/paperclip-runner/src/control-plane/durable-prp-control-plane.ts`: `recoverPendingSemanticInputs()` passes are serialized. A call made while the startup pass is still answering a held call waits for that pass, then runs its own, so the turn-start gate cannot finish early by skipping a call that is already being recovered. ## Verification Red/green: - `native-session-executor.test.ts` "answers a local run's held Paperclip tool calls after a restart (restart chaos t101)". On master `recoverSemanticToolInput` is `undefined` for a local run; with this PR it is wired. - `runnerd-codex-transport.test.ts` "answers a held call before starting the next turn (restart chaos t101)", against real runnerd and fake Codex, with a slow startup recovery pass already in flight when `turn/start` arrives. On master `turn/start` never ran recovery, and without the serialization `turn.start` is queued before the held call's result. With this PR the held call is recovered once and its result is queued before `turn.start`. Regression and static checks: - `runnerd-codex-transport.test.ts`, `durable-prp-control-plane.test.ts`, `runnerd-codex-transport-adoption.test.ts`: 510 passed. - `native-session-executor.test.ts` and `native-session-resume.test.ts`: 1368 passed, 1 failed. The failing case, "archives a damaged prior epoch … with real runnerd", fails identically on master on this Mac (`ENOENT … authority-epochs`), so CI is its reference. - `tsc --noEmit` passes for `packages/paperclip-runner` and `server`. ## Risks - Local runs now recover held calls after a reattach, as remote runs already did. Reads re-run under current authority. A mutation without a saved receipt still returns no result and stays held, as before. - `turn.start` may now wait up to its existing deadline while a recovery pass runs, then fails clearly if it has not finished. It never waits when nothing is unsettled, so normal turns get no added latency before `turn.start`. - No schema change and no change to persisted run state formats. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
c5da0b88ad |
fix(native): take over a remote runner at once when its old controller is proven gone (#20240)
## Thinking Path - Restart recovery should be fast and fault-proof; "restarts are product failures". Remote (Daytona) runs must recover as quickly as local ones once it is safe. - Phase 3's Daytona K13 storm (`w-20261109T100435-s9503`) showed Codex `restart_recovery_control_plane` p50 34.9 s, p95 61.1 s. That's Paperclip's own share, before any provider load. - The run logs show why. After a hard restart, each slow run sat in "Native restart recovery is waiting for safe ownership evidence" with reason `remote_controller_lease_live` for about 51 s, until the dead controller's 60 s remote-controller lease expired. - On the remote path, `evaluateNativeControllerTakeover` deliberately skips every process proof and waits for the lease. That's correct when the previous controller might live in another container or on another host. When it recorded this exact process space, the shared prover (pid, process start, boot id) can prove it gone, which is the same proof the local path already trusts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** After a hard control-plane restart, a remote (Daytona) native run could not be recovered until the dead controller's 60 s remote lease expired. Recovery took about 35–60 s, even though the old controller process was provably gone. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a Codex task in a Daytona environment. 2. Hard-kill the control plane (SIGKILL) while the run is active, then restart it. 3. The run logs `native.recovery.transition` "waiting for safe ownership evidence" (`remote_controller_lease_live`) and resumes only when the lease expires. **Expected behavior** When the previous controller ran in this same process space and is proven gone, recovery takes over the remote runner immediately. It still waits for the lease whenever the previous controller cannot be proven gone. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-restart-recovery.ts`, `evaluateNativeControllerTakeover` with `remoteLeaseFenced`: - An expired or released lease is allowed, as before. - A live lease whose holder recorded this exact process space (`controllerHostHash`, neither missing nor unknown) and a controller PID goes through the shared owner-gone prover, with `requireStoppedController`. A positive proof allows the takeover, with reason `remote_lease_<proof reason>`, for example `remote_lease_controller_process_dead`. - The one-release null-host fallback is never accepted for a remote runner. - A holder in another process space is never probed (the existing "must not probe another container's PID" test still holds). It waits for the lease, as before. - `native-restart-recovery.test.ts`: a new test, red on master, covers: - takeover when this-process-space controller is dead; - waiting while it is alive; - waiting without a probe when the process space differs. ## Verification - The 7 server test files that cover the takeover decision pass (351 tests): `native-restart-recovery`, `native-controller-host-recovery`, `native-remote-retry-admission`, `native-recovered-owner-followup`, `native-runner-restart-diskless.integration`, `heartbeat/recovery` and `controller-instance-lease`. - Evidence: kept-instance DB copy from the Daytona K13 wave. In run `ba194ae7`, the `awaiting_evidence` transition `remote_controller_lease_live` lasted from 04:26:06.8 to 04:26:57.9, then `bootstrap_incomplete` restart. - A Daytona K13 rerun will measure the before and after. ## Risks - **Takeover soundness** rests on the shared prover, which the local path already uses for the same controllers: same process space, PID dead or definitely restarted, and boot-id proof where needed. If the old controller is alive, the decision still waits for the lease. - **Multi-host or containerized controllers** record a different process space, so they are unaffected and still fenced by the lease. - **The remote runner** keeps its own reconnect grace (7 min). The new controller reattaches through the existing durable-authority path; only the wait before that changes. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`, Anthropic), 1M context window, tool use and code execution, via Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
bd83715a6e |
fix(recovery): bootstrap a remote follow-up again when a restart cut it off after retiring its finished owner (#20241)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A restart must resume in-progress runs on its own. Restart recovery
classifies each claimed native run and the executor acts on that claim.
> - A C1 follow-up on a remote sandbox first retires the finished owner
of the previous turn (it archives the previous controller state), then
launches a new runner.
> - A restart in that window left the run with an inherited session
checkpoint but no runner for this run. Recovery read the inherited
checkpoint as proof of a live remote runner and claimed reattach. The
executor then found no runner identity and failed with
`durable_identity_unreadable`, so the user had to press Retry.
> - This pull request makes recovery recognize that nothing reached a
runner for this run, and makes the executor bootstrap again over the
empty root.
> - The benefit is that this restart window resumes the follow-up by
itself.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
In restart-chaos Daytona K13 storm wave seed 9503, task t03 (codex, C1)
graded R3 retry_needed. Follow-up run 0d8b7258 retired its previous
owner at 10:07:32.988 ("Run 4ee1c19a finished without a saved runner
checkpoint; starting a new runner"). A K1 kill at 10:07:34 cut it off
before any runner start was requested. On restart, recovery claimed
`reattach_remote_runner` and the executor failed with
`runner_state_identity_mismatch: durable_identity_unreadable`. The run
ended with `native_continuation_requires_reconciliation` and a Retry
offer.
**Expected behavior**
Recovery sees that no runner was ever requested for this run, claims
`bootstrap_incomplete`, and the executor starts the new runner the first
attempt was about to start.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a remote (Daytona) C1 follow-up whose previous turn finished.
2. Kill the server after the follow-up retires the finished owner and
before it records `native.process_start_requested`.
3. Restart the server. See the `reattach_remote_runner` claim and the
`durable_identity_unreadable` failure.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
780f378f60 |
fix(recovery): settle a local workspace command whose server process died mid-command (#20233)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A run prepares its execution workspace with local commands
(`workspace_provision`, `worktree_prepare`, teardown, cleanup). The
server records each command as a `workspace_operations` row.
> - A restart can stop the server while such a command runs. The row
then stays `running` forever, because no process or recovery path owns
it.
> - The restart-chaos harness found this. A K2 drain interrupted a run,
then the server started `bash ./scripts/provision-worktree.sh` for the
run and exited before it finished. The retry succeeded, but the old row
stayed `running`.
> - The ownership reconciler already settles finalize attempts whose
process died. Local command operations had no owner stamp and no
ownership kind.
> - This pull request stamps each local command operation with the
process that runs it and adds a `workspace_command_operation` ownership
kind that fails an abandoned one.
> - The benefit is that a restart never leaves a stuck workspace
operation behind.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
In restart-chaos wave seed 9807 (local, R1, faults K1/K2), tasks t03 and
t04 graded R6 with `running_workspace_operations`. A K2 drain
interrupted the run with `server_shutdown_interrupted`. A
`workspace_provision` operation started 0.3 s later in the same process
and never finished. The retry run succeeded. The orphan operation stayed
`running` forever.
**Expected behavior**
When the process that ran a local workspace command is gone, recovery
closes the operation. It does not change the run or its outcome.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a run that provisions a worktree with a provision command.
2. Drain or restart the server while the command runs.
3. After the restart, see that the `workspace_operations` row for the
command stays `running`.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
267f54ef72 |
fix(chat): make task-not-found, unreachable-MCP and board denials final for agents (#20208)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People talk to their agents in Agent Chat, and the agents act through the Paperclip API > - A board-only denial now tells the agent that it is final and where the person acts (#20151, #20182). Other refusals and errors still give no sign that they are final > - So the agent keeps trying until the reply deadline, and the person gets no answer. In chat evaluations this happened on a task lookup that returned 404, on an MCP server that Paperclip could not reach, on a model question, and after a final budget denial > - This pull request makes those answers say that they are final and what the person must do, and it tightens the chat guidance after a board-only denial > - The benefit is a prompt, correct reply instead of a long search or forbidden workarounds ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20151, #20182 (same remedy for board-only denials). **What happened** In four Agent Chat evaluation cases on a slower model, the agent did not reply before its deadline: - Asked to open a task from an old link, the agent got `404 {"error":"Issue not found"}`. It quoted the private-task guidance, then searched archived projects, activity and the old host for 3 more minutes. - Asked to connect an MCP server at an unreachable URL, the agent got `502 {"error":"fetch failed","code":"runtime_error"}` from the health check. It retried, then used `curl` on the host and gateway IP addresses to look for the server. - Asked which coding models an agent can use, the agent got the runtime's model list in its first minute. The catalog did not say how to list OpenRouter models or that these lists answer the question, so it enumerated OpenRouter with the shell until the deadline. - Asked to raise a budget, the agent got the final board-only denial. The chat guidance said "Complete other permitted work", so it probed approvals and other routes and replied too late. **Expected behavior** The answer the agent receives says whether it is final and what the person must do, with a link when the page is known. The agent replies at once. It does not search other routes, retry, or contact other network addresses. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open Agent Chat with a CEO agent. 2. Ask it to open a deleted task by its old link, or to connect an MCP server at a closed local port. 3. The agent calls `GET /api/issues/{id}` (404) or `POST /api/tool-connections/{id}/health-check` (502 "fetch failed"). 4. The body says nothing about finality. The agent keeps searching or probing and replies late or not at all. ## What Changed - `GET /api/issues/:id`: for an agent, the 404 body adds `code: "issue_not_visible"` and a `remediation`. It says that the lookup is final, that the agent must not search other routes or open a similarly named task, and that it should reply now and offer sharing or pasting. A missing task, a private task and another company's task get the same body, so the body reveals nothing. People and other routes keep the plain body. - MCP health check and catalog refresh: when Paperclip cannot reach the server (connection refused, DNS, network, reset, timeout or TLS), an agent's error adds a `remediation`. It says the person must correct the URL or start the server, that the agent must not contact other hosts, ports or network addresses, and it links Connectors (`/<prefix>/apps`). Status, `error` and `code` do not change. - `AGENT_CHAT_DIRECTIVE`: after a board-only denial, the agent replies now instead of making more calls. "Complete other permitted work" is removed. - API catalog: `POST /api/companies/{companyId}/tools/connections` says it saves without a check and points MCP-by-URL setup at `tools/apps/connect`, which checks the server first and saves nothing for a fresh setup that cannot reach it. `GET /api/companies/{companyId}/adapters/{type}/models` says which lists answer a model question (the runtime's list with `provider`, `acpxAgent` for ACPX agents and `environmentId`, and `opencode_local` with `provider=openrouter` for OpenRouter keys), that the OpenRouter list is not a qualification, and that with those inputs these calls answer the question. `openrouter` is added to the documented `provider` values. - API catalog authorization: budget policy upsert, budget incident resolution, company and agent budget updates, and approval approve/reject are now listed as board-only. Their routes already call `assertBoard`, but the catalog said `board_or_agent`, so an agent explored them as its own action before it got the 403. - Tests: new `agent-refusal-finality.test.ts` (including the catalog actor for the budget and approval routes); the private-task access test now checks that a private and a missing task give an agent the same 404 body; the guidance test checks the new wording. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/agent-refusal-finality.test.ts src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-access-grants-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/authz-existence-oracle-guard.test.ts`: all pass (embedded Postgres included). - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/error-handler.test.ts src/__tests__/generic-mcp-connection.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/remote-http-rebinding.test.ts src/__tests__/cloud-portfolio-error.test.ts src/__tests__/database-backup-catalog-guidance.test.ts`: 183 tests pass. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server`: passes. - Real chat journeys on the chat evaluation branch (runner-opencode): the results will follow in a comment. ## Risks - Low risk. HTTP status, `error` and `code` stay the same for each changed error. Agents get extra top-level fields (`code` on the task 404, `remediation`). A client that compares a whole agent 404 body for `GET /api/issues/:id` exactly will see a change. - The task 404 body is the same for missing, private and other-company tasks, so it adds no existence oracle. Other issue routes keep their plain body. - The guidance change can make an agent stop after a board-only denial in a request that had other, permitted parts. The agent still reports what it finished. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
d2fe85e57c |
fix(secrets): delete a secret that a binding proposal referenced (#20193)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents can propose a secret binding. A person approves or rejects it on a review card. > - Each binding proposal row refers to one source: a secret or a pending secret proposal. A check constraint enforces this. > - The secret reference used `ON DELETE SET NULL`. When a person deletes the secret, Postgres sets the reference to null. The check constraint then rejects the row. > - So a person cannot delete any secret that a binding proposal ever referenced. The API returns 500. > - This pull request deletes the proposal rows together with the secret, as the other source reference already does. Before the delete, it rejects pending proposals so their cards close with a reason. > - The benefit is that secret deletion works again and no review card points at a removed proposal. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15644 (related: block secret deletion while bindings still exist). **What happened** `DELETE /api/secrets/:id` returned 500 for a secret that a binding proposal referenced. The server log showed `new row for relation "company_secret_proposals" violates check constraint "company_secret_proposals_shape_check"`. This happened for pending, rejected and approved proposals. It also happened after the person removed the agent's binding. **Expected behavior** The person can delete the secret. Proposals that referenced it go with it. A pending review card closes as rejected and tells why. **Steps to reproduce** 1. An agent proposes a binding for an existing company secret (`POST /api/agents/me/secret-proposals` with `secretId`). 2. Approve or reject the proposal, or leave it pending. 3. Delete the secret with `DELETE /api/secrets/:id`. 4. The response is 500 and the secret stays. ## What Changed - `packages/db`: `company_secret_proposals.secret_id` now uses `ON DELETE CASCADE`, the same as `secret_proposal_id`. Migration `0452_secret_proposal_secret_cascade.sql` replaces the foreign key (`DROP CONSTRAINT IF EXISTS`, then `ADD CONSTRAINT`). - `server/src/services/secrets.ts`: `remove` accepts an optional `beforeDelete` hook. The hook runs after the secret is marked deleted and before its row is removed. - `server/src/services/secret-proposals.ts`: new `rejectPendingBindingsForSecret`. It rejects pending binding proposals for a secret with a reason and returns them. This closes their review cards and writes the normal activity entries. `createBinding` now holds the secret row `FOR SHARE` in its insert transaction and refuses a deleted secret. So no new pending proposal can start after the delete marks the secret deleted. - `server/src/routes/secrets.ts`: the delete route rejects pending proposals in `beforeDelete`. For each one it sends the normal rejection notice and wake (`notifySecretProposalResolution`), so the proposing agent continues. - `server/src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts`: a regression test deletes a secret with a pending, rejected and approved binding proposal through the route. It checks the secret and proposal are gone, the card status is correct, and only the pending case sends one rejection notice and one wake. A second test checks that a binding proposal for a secret that the delete already marked deleted fails with 404. ## Verification - Red first: the new test failed on `origin/master` with the shape-check violation for all three cases. - `cd server && vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts`: 47 passed. - `vitest run src/__tests__/chat-run-milestone-governed-work.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-secrets-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts`: 112 passed. - `tsc --noEmit` for `server` and `packages/db`: pass. `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations`: pass. - Found by the `secrets.secret-proposal` chat evaluation. Its cleanup deletes the fixture secret and failed on this error in runs 42563093640 and 42571127911. ## Risks - The migration only replaces one foreign key. It does not rewrite rows. Existing rows already have a non-null `secret_id` or `secret_proposal_id`, so nothing else changes. - Deleting a secret now also deletes its binding proposal rows. The activity log keeps the proposal history (`secret.proposal.*` and `secret.deleted`). Secret-kind proposal rows that created the secret keep `created_secret_id ON DELETE SET NULL`, so their history stays. - Other paths that delete secrets (company deletion, user secret cleanup) now cascade instead of failing on the same constraint. They do not reject pending cards first. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), used with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
df4562ab38 |
fix(native): an inherited checkpoint with a pending runtime request is evidence (#20226)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - #20153 and #20214 let restart recovery set aside a remote follow-up's admission-rebound checkpoint when the checkpoint is blank and nothing of the run reached a runner. Recovery then restarts the bootstrap instead of blocking > - "Blank" checked the cursor, terminal turns, active turn, semantic result and terminal, but not pending runtime requests > - A rebound checkpoint that still carried an outstanding runtime request would therefore be treated as no evidence. The run would restart as a fresh bootstrap and drop that request > - This pull request also requires no pending runtime requests before the checkpoint counts as a blank admission checkpoint > - The benefit is that an outstanding request always keeps the run on its reconciling path ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20214 **What happened?** After #20214 merged, ponytail review noted that `admissionCheckpointOnly` (shared by #20153's `remoteRunnerNeverReceivedCommands` and #20214's `inheritedCheckpointOnly`) did not inspect `pendingRuntimeRequests`. A rebound checkpoint with a pending request would be demoted to "no evidence", and the run restarted as `remote_execution_never_claimed`, dropping the request. **Expected behavior** A checkpoint with any pending runtime request is evidence. The run is not restarted as a fresh bootstrap. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Claim restart recovery for an unclaimed remote follow-up whose rebound checkpoint carries a pending runtime request and no other state. 2. Before this change, recovery claims `bootstrap_incomplete`. **Paperclip version or commit** Current master after #20214. ## What Changed - `native-restart-recovery.ts`: `admissionCheckpointOnly` additionally requires `pendingRuntimeRequests` to be absent or empty. - `native-runner-restart-recovery.integration.test.ts`: a held case, an unclaimed remote follow-up whose inherited checkpoint carries a pending runtime request. ## Verification - Red/green: on master the held case is restarted as `bootstrap_incomplete`. With the change it is not, and the other cases are unchanged. - `vitest run` of `native-runner-restart-recovery.integration.test.ts` and `native-restart-recovery.test.ts`: 2 files, 201 tests passed (14 skipped). - `PAPERCLIP_TYPECHECK_LOW_MEMORY=1 pnpm typecheck` (`server`): passed. ## Risks - Minimal. The change only narrows when a checkpoint counts as blank. Every run it affects keeps the existing, more conservative classification. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test 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 version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
8525bb534c |
fix(chat): post a turn's answer when a card it did not create is pending (#20220)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People talk to agents in Agent Chat. The agent's final message becomes the chat reply. > - A chat thread can hold a pending card that the board addressed to another person, for example a human-only confirmation for Riley. > - When Alex asks the agent to act on that card, the agent correctly gets `403 interaction_human_only` and writes a final answer that explains the denial. > - The shared answered rule (`conversationTurnAnswered()`, from #20179 and #20204) counted any pending human-only card in the thread as the turn's own response. So the answer was suppressed, and the chat stayed `active` with no reply. > - This pull request limits that rule to cards that the turn's own run created. Other cards still hold the task status. > - The benefit is that the person always gets the turn's answer, unless the turn itself asked a question with a card. Live completion and restart recovery stay consistent. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20179, #20204 (the shared answered rule this PR corrects). **What happened** In an Agent Chat, the board created a pending `request_confirmation` card with `resolverPolicy: human_only`, addressed to another user (Riley). The card has no source run. Alex wrote "I approve Riley's request." The agent tried to accept the card and got `403 interaction_human_only`. It then wrote a correct final answer: the card needs Riley. The run succeeded with a `yielded` result and a `response_wake` continuation. Run completion recorded `presentationDecision: none`. No comment was created. The conversation stayed `active`, so Alex never got a reply. Cause: `conversationTurnAnswered()` reused the status-gate query `pendingNativeInteraction()`. In conversation mode, that query excludes another run's card only when it is an ordinary question or an `anyone` confirmation. A human-only card addressed to someone else is kept. The rule then treated that card as the card that "presents the turn", although this run did not create it. **Expected behavior** A successful chat turn posts its final answer exactly once, and the conversation moves to `waiting`. Only a pending question or confirmation card that the turn's own run created presents the turn in place of its prose. A card from an earlier turn, or one the board addressed to another person, can hold the task status, but it does not suppress the answer. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open an Agent Chat as Alex. 2. As the board, create a pending `request_confirmation` card in the chat with `resolverPolicy: human_only` and `addresseeUserId` set to another person. 3. Send "I approve Riley's request." 4. Let the agent try to accept the card, get `403 interaction_human_only`, and end its turn with a final answer. 5. See that no reply appears, `presentationDecision.commentAction` is `none`, and `conversationState` stays `active`. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-governance.ts`: `conversationTurnAnswered()` now checks only pending cards whose `sourceRunId` is the turn's run. `pendingNativeInteraction()` gets an optional `createdByRun` filter for this. The status gate (`pendingNativeGovernance()`) does not change, so another person's card still holds the task. - Both callers get the fix through the one shared rule `conversationTurnPresentsAnswer()`: live run completion (`run-completion.ts`) and background presentation recovery (`recoverCommittedNativeChatResponse`). - `server/src/services/heartbeat/run-completion.test.ts`: new live cases "someone else's confirmation card" (board-created, human-only, addressed to another user, no source run) and "earlier turn's question card" (created by an earlier run of the same agent). Each case now also checks that the conversation moves to `waiting`. - `server/src/services/native-runtime/agent-chat-response-recovery.test.ts`: new restart case for the board-created card, plus a `waiting` check after recovery. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: state that only the turn's own card presents the turn. ## Verification - Thesis: the reply is suppressed because the answered rule counts any pending human-only card in the thread, not only this run's card. If this is true, a turn with only a board-created card addressed to someone else posts no comment on master, and restricting the rule to `sourceRunId = runId` posts exactly one comment and settles the conversation to `waiting`, with the own-card cases unchanged. - Failing first: without the fix, the two new live cases failed (`expected [] to deeply equal [answer]`). The new recovery case also failed (no comment). - After the fix: - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/heartbeat/run-completion.test.ts -t "posts a waiting conversation turn"`: 9 passed (includes the two own-card cases, which still post nothing). - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/native-runtime/agent-chat-response-recovery.test.ts`: 62 passed. - Both suites use a real embedded PostgreSQL database. - Turn start: no change. The rule runs only after the provider turn ends. ## Risks - Low. Only the presentation rule changes. The status gate, the conversation settle rule (it already required `sourceRunId = run.id`) and the external-chat path do not change. - Behavior shift: a turn now posts its answer while another run's or the board's card is pending. Before, the answer was lost. A card that the turn itself created still presents the turn, as before. - Previous-release state: no persisted shape change. A run that the previous release already recorded as `none` keeps that decision. Recovery does not re-present it. > 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 - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs) in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
fe72bc5f81 |
fix(native): roll back a warm rotation cut off before its new control plane once its runner is proven dead (#20218)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A warm follow-up rotates authority before it attaches. It archives the previous epoch (suspended runner state and settled controller) under `authority-epochs/`, then writes its own control plane > - #20146 taught recovery to roll back a rotation whose new control plane held only an undelivered `run.attach`, once its runner was proven dead > - A hard kill can land one step earlier, after the archive and before the new control plane exists. The root then holds only the archive, with no active control plane and no runner state. The executor read "no durable identity" and failed with `runner_state_identity_mismatch: durable_identity_unreadable` > - This pull request applies the same proven rollback to that earlier point of the rotation > - The benefit is that a hard kill anywhere in the rotation window resumes the follow-up from the previous turn ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20146 **What happened?** Local mixed restart-chaos wave w-20261109T081456-s9901 (master |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
ad57d5cc12 |
fix(native): restart an unclaimed remote follow-up that carries only its inherited checkpoint (#20214)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A remote per-turn follow-up inherits the previous run's session checkpoint at admission, rebound to its own identity. Its session root still holds the previous owner's remote marker until the follow-up rotates authority > - If a restart lands before the follow-up's controller ever claims execution, recovery should restart its bootstrap: nothing of this run reached any runner > - Recovery's unclaimed-bootstrap check required no checkpoint and no provider evidence. The inherited checkpoint failed both, so recovery claimed `reattach_remote_runner` > - Even under a bootstrap claim, the executor skipped the per-turn projection restore for every restart claim. It therefore never rehydrated the previous owner's external marker, and failed with `runner_state_identity_mismatch: durable_identity_unreadable` > - This pull request does not count the inherited checkpoint as evidence for an unclaimed remote run, and lets a bootstrap claim restore the previous owner's projection, as a fresh follow-up start does > - The benefit is that a follow-up drained in its first second on Daytona restarts on its own ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20153 **What happened?** Daytona per-turn restart-chaos K13 storm w-20261109T074128-s9503 (revision |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
98e0f1fc0d |
fix(native-runtime): a stopped run cannot close a task another run continues; deliver a pre-restart comment at once (#20216)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - When the board stops a run and then posts a comment asking the agent to continue, that comment starts a new run, and only that new run should decide when the task is done > - In restart chaos wave `w-20261109T081456-s9901`, t16 (claude S1, K1) closed the task as done without the line the user asked for, and t10 (codex S1, K6) never woke a run for the continue comment, so it needed a Retry > - In t16, the stopped run's saved "done" result was accepted 10 s after the continue run started. In t10, a restart killed the server 21 ms after the comment committed, before its wake was written, and the comment backstop then waited out its 30 s grace > - This pull request stops a run from closing a task that another run now holds, and makes the backstop deliver at once a comment that predates the server process > - The benefit is that a user's latest direction after a Stop is neither overridden by the stopped run nor lost to a restart ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19831. Restart chaos wave `w-20261109T081456-s9901` (master `09e24dd12c`), tasks t16 and t10. **t16, from the kept database (CHA-20):** - 08:29:19: the board stopped run 1 (`6e33d123`). Its saved result reported done, but finalization failed on the stop (`finalization_failed_claim_preserved`, a retryable failure). - 08:29:41: the user's continue comment started run 2 (`2cb71c5b`). Run 2 held the task's execution and saw the comment. - 08:29:51: the finalization reconciler retried run 1's saved result and committed `completion_claim_policy_accepted` for run 1. The task closed as done. - From then on, every Paperclip tool call from run 2 was refused (`paperclip_runner_tool_binding_not_authorized`), so it could not add the `CONTINUE-…` line. Its result (blocked) was then preserved as `terminal_status_preserved`. - Run 2 ending `succeeded` with `native_session_lease_lost` follows from this: its result was accepted before the lease was lost. The comment was delivered; the model saw it. **t10 (CHA-14):** - The Stop moved the task to blocked. The user's comment reopened it to todo at 08:26:28.633, and K6 killed the server at 08:26:28.654, before the route wrote the comment's wake. No wake request exists for that comment. - This is not caused by the Stop, #20066 or #20180: the wake is written after the comment commits, and the kill landed in between. - The I4 backstop ("a user comment without a wake") matched the comment, but treated it as possibly still getting its normal wake for 30 s. The pass interval then pushed the check to 02:27:16, and the harness clicked Retry at 02:26:59. ## What Changed - `status-arbiter.ts`: - New `heldByAnotherRun(issue, runId)`. - `supersedeStaleOwnerCompletion` also keeps status, with reason `completion_run_superseded`, when the issue's `executionRunId` is a different run. A run that was reassigned away still gets `completion_owner_superseded`. - `native-run-finalizer.ts` and `native-status-reassessment.ts` pass the run id to that guard. - `status-decision-committer.ts` rechecks the same rule under the issue lock: a done decision for a non-conversation issue held by another run raises `NativeStatusRaceError`. The finalizer then re-arbitrates and keeps status. - `ownership-invariant-report.ts`: the comment-without-wake grace now only applies to comments created after this server process started (`getServerProcessStartedAt`). Separate live server replicas are not supported, and the wake is written by the process that accepted the comment, so an older comment is owed at once. The startup pass now delivers it. `runOwnershipReconciliationPass` takes an optional `processStartedAt`. ## Verification Red/green: - `native-stale-owner-completion.test.ts`: three new tests. - The unit policy: another run holding the task keeps status; the same run, or none, still closes it. - "does not let a stopped run's saved done result close the task a newer run is continuing" (the t16 shape). - "does not close the task when a newer run takes it after arbitration but before the status commit" (only the committer recheck covers this). - On master: 3 failed. With this PR: 13 passed. - `ownership-reconciliation-report.test.ts`: "finds at once a young user comment whose wake a restart lost after the board stopped the run" (the t10 shape). It fails on master and passes with this PR; the same comment in a process that accepted it still waits for its grace deadline. The file: 27 passed. Regression and static checks: - 16 nearby native finalization, status projection, workspace finalizer and arbiter suites: 439 passed. - `tsc --noEmit` passes for `server`, and for the two test files. ## Risks - A done result now waits when a different run holds the task. That run reaches its own decision; the earlier result stays as history. If the holder is stale, the existing execution-lock recovery clears it, and a later reassessment can then close the task. - After a restart, a user comment newer than the task's last run, with no wake, is delivered at the startup pass rather than 30 s later. A replica that is still live and writing the same wake is not a supported topology. - No schema change and no change to persisted run state. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
6383eb8033 |
fix(authz): require board authority for agent budget changes on every route (#20213)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Budgets stop agent spending. The budget hard stop is a control-plane invariant > - The budget routes (`PATCH /api/agents/:id/budgets`, `PATCH /api/companies/:id/budgets`) are board-only > - `PATCH /api/agents/:id` also accepts `budgetMonthlyCents`, and the configuration service writes the agent budget policy from it. That route had no board check for the field > - So an agent, such as a CEO, a manager or the agent itself, can change a monthly budget without a board user. This is a second route around a board-only control, like the pause bypass that #20164 fixed > - This pull request applies the budget route authority to every route that writes an agent budget, and gives agents the final board-only denial with a link to the budget page (#20151) > - The benefit is that only the board changes budgets, and an agent that asks gets a final answer that it can pass to the person ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17857 (earlier fix, now in conflict with master; this PR rebases it and adds the budget page link). Refs #20164 and #20151 (same pattern for PATCH status and board-only denials). **What happened** An agent can send `PATCH /api/agents/{id}` with `budgetMonthlyCents`. The route accepts it, and the configuration service writes the agent budget policy. This works for the agent's own budget and, with update permission, for other agents. The same field also reaches budget policy through a configuration rollback, direct agent creation, an immediate hire and a built-in agent provision. A chat eval (`budgets-costs.resolve-budget`) found the route. **Expected behavior** Only a board user can change an active budget, as on the dedicated budget routes. An agent gets `403` with code `board_access_required`. The denial says it is final and links the agent's budget tab (`/<prefix>/agents/<id>/budgets`) or the company budgets page (`/<prefix>/activity/budgets`). An agent can still propose a budget in a hire that waits for board approval. The approving board user activates it. **Steps to reproduce** 1. On master, authenticate as an agent of a company (for example the CEO). 2. Send `PATCH /api/agents/{agentId}` with body `{"budgetMonthlyCents": 5000}`, for its own id or for another agent. 3. See `200`. The agent budget policy changes with no board action. 4. The new route tests reproduce this: on master source they fail with `expected 200 to be 403`. ## What Changed - `PATCH /api/agents/:id`: a changed `budgetMonthlyCents` requires a board actor. An unchanged amount with other edits still works. - Configuration rollback: a rollback that changes the budget requires a board actor. - `POST /api/companies/:id/agents` and an immediate `agent-hires`: a positive budget requires a board actor. A hire that needs board approval keeps the proposed budget and does not activate it before approval. - Built-in agent provision: a budget override requires a board actor. - `prepareAgentConfiguration` rejects an agent-originated budget change again (defense in depth). An agent rollback with an unchanged amount does not rewrite the policy. - Board writes keep the actual operator identity. The initial hire budget is saved in the hire transaction. - `assertBoard` and `boardAccessRequired` take an optional board page. Budget denials link the agent's budget tab or the company budgets page, not the general agent profile. - Agent access map updated. - This includes the four commits of #17857 ( |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
b1049b174e |
fix(native): retire a finished remote owner whose suspend never finished once its sandbox leases ended (#20211)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Before a per-turn follow-up starts a new runner, it retires the previous turn's finished owner. Retirement requires the owner's controller journal to be settled > - A local runner that is proven stopped can no longer act on its own lifecycle commands, so an unfinished `runner.suspend` from it does not hold the follow-up > - On a remote per-turn sandbox the same thing happens when a restart or drain lands while the runner is suspending. But the remote path had no equivalent rule, so the unfinished `runner.suspend` held the follow-up even after the previous run's sandbox lease had ended > - This pull request treats a remote owner's lifecycle commands as settled once every sandbox lease of that run has been released or expired, and none of them is the sandbox the follow-up now uses > - The benefit is that a C1 follow-up after a restart on Daytona continues on its own ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20140 **What happened?** Daytona per-turn restart-chaos K13 storm w-20261109T074128-s9503 (revision |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
fc5c79a327 |
fix(guidance): tell agents who acts and which page to link for person-only steps (#20206)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents in chat read the API catalog (`search_api`) and `connections_search` to learn what they can do and who must act > - Some requests need a step that only a person can take: connect an assistant, allow a quarantined app action, turn on an experiment, enter an API key, or finish their own connection request > - For these steps, no catalog entry or search result said who acts or which page to link, and none of them returns a board-only 403, so the denial guidance from #20151 and #20182 does not reach them > - The agent knew a person had to act, searched for the page until its turn ran out, and never replied > - This pull request puts the fact and the exact page link where the agent already looks, following #20152 and #20170 > - The benefit is that the agent replies at once with the right page instead of timing out ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20151, #20152, #20170, #20182 **What happened** In chat, five requests ended with no reply. The agent searched the API until the turn deadline: - "Connect my assistant so it can see our tasks." `GET /api/mcp/setup` is refused for agents. Its catalog entry had no description, so the refusal text "Its catalog description says who can use it" pointed at nothing. - "Use the app's new export feature." The new action was quarantined. No catalog entry said where a person reviews it. - "Let me chat with Morgan over iMessage." `connections_search` hides chat channels while the Chat connectors experiment is off, so the agent could not find iMessage or the setting that hides it. `POST /api/companies/{companyId}/chat-endpoints` also accepted a draft endpoint for the turned-off provider. - "Connect my account using an API key." The service was the person's own MCP server. `connections_search` returned no result and did not name the secure "Connect your own MCP server" page. - "I will finish Alex's connection request for them." No catalog entry said that only the addressee can resolve a connection request card. **Expected behavior** The agent says who must act, links the exact page, and replies in the same turn. It does not search further, does not ask for a key in chat, and does not create another request. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Ask a chat agent one of the five requests above, in the matching state (for example, Chat connectors off, or a quarantined catalog entry). 2. Watch the run events. The agent calls `search_api` and `call_api` until the turn deadline and posts no reply. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: add catalog descriptions that say who acts, link the page, and say not to search further: - `GET /api/mcp/setup` and `POST /api/mcp/requests/{id}/consent` link [Assistant connections](/<prefix>/apps/assistant-connection) and say the consent screen offers only access within the person's own role. - `GET /api/tool-connections/{connectionId}/catalog`, `.../review-counts` and `GET /api/companies/{companyId}/tools/apps/attention` say a quarantined action waits for a person on `/<prefix>/apps/<connectionId>/permissions`. - The four `/api/connection-intents/{interactionId}/...` routes say only the addressee can resolve the card, and link the task that holds it. - `server/src/services/connection-intents.ts`: - While Chat connectors is off, a search that names a chat-only channel (for example iMessage) returns it as `unavailable`, with a reason that links `/<prefix>/company/settings/instance/experimental`. Channels that also offer tools, such as Slack, keep their current result. - A single `unavailable` result now always gets the "explain the reason, do not bypass" instruction. - When no listed service matches and the person gave the service's own server URL, the instruction links `/<prefix>/apps/byo`, the secure "Connect your own MCP server" page, and says never to ask for a key in chat. - `server/src/routes/chat-channels.ts`: `POST /api/companies/{companyId}/chat-endpoints` returns 403 with the Experimental settings page while the provider's experiment is off (Chat connectors, or GitHub review bots for GitHub). AgentMail is unchanged. The catalog entry says the same. The UI already hides the setup pages in this state. - `GET /api/issues/{id}/interactions` says only the addressee resolves a connection request card. - A hidden channel that an aggregator can serve (for example Discord) keeps its aggregator routes instead of the unavailable result. - Tests: `person-only-page-guidance.test.ts` checks the catalog text and that every named page is a route that `ui/src/App.tsx` mounts. `connection-intents-service.test.ts` covers the hidden channel (off and on) and the own-server page. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/person-only-page-guidance.test.ts src/__tests__/connection-intents-service.test.ts` passes. `chat-channels.integration.test.ts` passes with `-t` for every test that posts to the create route. - These related suites pass: `openapi-routes`, `connection-aggregator-fallback`, `generic-mcp-connection`, `assistant-connections-guidance`, `company-model-service-settings-guidance`, `board-access-denial`, `email-channels.integration`, and the eight suites that import `runner-api-catalog`. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server` shows no errors in the changed files. - End to end: the full-stack chat evals for the five requests ran on a branch with this change. The run results are in the comments below. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is text in the API catalog and in `connections_search` results, plus one result for a channel that was hidden before. - A hidden channel now shows in search as `unavailable` with no methods. It cannot be set up from the result, so the gate stays in place. - Chat endpoint creation is now refused while the experiment is off. Callers that created endpoints with the setting off now get 403. Three integration tests that relied on that now turn the setting on first, and a new test covers the refusal. - The single-`unavailable` instruction now also applies in suggestion mode. Before, that mode told the agent to "respect unavailable states" with no reason. > 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 - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |