mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
ad440d4e91339e2206ab58640d50fcbb6f61b83c
3546
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 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> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
09e24dd12c |
fix(authz): say every plugin management step is board-only in plugin denials (#20207)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People ask a chat agent to do work, and some of that work is board-only, such as plugin management > - When an agent gets a board-only denial, the denial tells it to stop and reply with a link to the board page > - The denial only spoke about the one route that was denied. An agent that read the plugin list first was not told that plugin configuration and secret binding are also board-only > - The agent then searched the API catalog for an agent route to configure the plugin. It searched for 110 seconds, and its reply came after the chat window closed > - This pull request adds one fact to every board-only denial on a plugin route: all plugin management steps have no agent route > - The benefit is that the agent replies at once with the plugin settings link, and does not search for a route that does not exist ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20182 (the plugin denial link and "reply now" text that this builds on). **What happened** In the chat eval `plugins.configure-plugin`, the person asked the agent to finish configuring the preview plugin. The agent called `GET /api/plugins` and got the board-only denial. Its reasoning said: "Denial final. But ... perhaps the preview plugin is configured through a different route accessible to agents". It then made 14 more catalog searches for plugin config, credential and secret-binding routes. The run did not reply before the 150 second chat window closed. **Expected behavior** After a board-only denial on any plugin route, the agent replies now. It says that a board user must configure the plugin, and it links the plugin settings page. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Install a plugin that has a required secret setting, and do not configure it. 2. In chat, ask an agent: "Finish configuring the preview plugin." 3. The agent calls `GET /api/plugins` and gets 403 "Board access required". 4. Before this change, the denial does not say that configuration and secret binding are also board-only, and the agent searches for another route. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/authz.ts`: a board-only denial for an agent on any `/api/plugins` route adds one sentence. The sentence says that listing, installing, configuring (including choosing a secret for a plugin setting), enabling, disabling, upgrading and removing plugins have no agent route. - Other board-only denials do not change. Plugin tools that are assigned to an agent are not mentioned, so tool use is not discouraged. - `server/src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts`: a regression test for the plugin list and plugin config denials, and a negative check for a non-plugin denial. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts` passes (26 tests). - Without the `authz.ts` change, the new test fails. - The chat eval `plugins.configure-plugin` is rerun on a case branch that includes this commit. The result is in the PR comments. ## Risks - Low risk. The change only adds text to the 403 body that agents get. People and board actors get the same body as before. - The sentence is a fact about the current routes. Every plugin management route uses `assertBoard`, `assertBoardOrgAccess` or `assertInstanceAdmin`. If a plugin management route becomes agent-accessible later, this sentence must change 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
6fd46c0025 |
perf(budgets): judge Paperclip's share of restart recovery; report the provider's session load (#20183)
## Thinking Path - Speed budgets protect the time to first visible agent activity, and restart recovery is one of the judged metrics (`native-speed-budgets.ts`, wave grader). - In the B1 concurrency-6 chaos wave (`w-20261109T045320-s9807`), Codex `restart_recovery` was p50 8.6 s and p95 11.2 s, against a budget of 6.5 s and 8.0 s. At concurrency 4 (K13) it was 3.8 s and 5.0 s. - The preparation spans on a copy of the kept database break it down: - Paperclip's share (ready → claim → prepare → runtime stage → runner launch) is a steady 1.2–2.0 s. - `provider.session.load`, the Codex app-server boot plus `thread/resume` of long saved sessions, takes 3.0–6.3 s, 65–75% of each recovery. - Resumes run concurrently, and the worktree lock and the startup reconciler are not on the path. - Judging the full latency therefore mixes our code with provider and session-size effects. Budget the part we control, so a regression in our code shows up regardless of session size or concurrency, and report the rest. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** `restart_recovery` breached its budget whenever many long provider sessions resumed at once, although Paperclip's own recovery work stayed within about 2 s. The breach did not point at anything Paperclip could fix, and a real regression in our code could hide inside the provider-load variance. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a local chaos wave at concurrency 6 with long-running Codex tasks and K1/K2/K4 faults (for example B1, seed 9807). 2. Compare `restart_recovery` in `speed.json` with `provider.session.load` in the recovered runs' run logs. **Expected behavior** The budget judges Paperclip's share of a recovery. The provider's session load and the full latency are reported but not judged. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-speed-budgets.ts`: - New budgeted metric `restart_recovery_control_plane`: from `ready` to the start of `provider.session.load`, or to the next provider event when nothing reloads (for example a reattached runner). - Its budget is 2.5 s / 4.0 s for claude, codex and opencode. Measured: 1.2–2.0 s per run at concurrency 6. - The full `restart_recovery` stays in the table for reporting. - Breach payloads carry `restartTotalMs` and `providerLoadMs`. - `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-run-trace.ts`: - The per-run check records when `provider.session.load` starts, keeps the recovery measurement, and judges it when the run finishes. - It judges after the deferred diagnostics drain, so a provider span committed after the provider event still counts. - It emits `restart_recovery_control_plane` breaches only. - `tests/restart-chaos/ttft-baseline-stats.ts`: each recovery sample gains `controlPlaneMs` and `providerLoadMs`. The provider-load start is the span event's write time minus its duration. - `tests/restart-chaos/wave-speed.ts`: - Three restart rows per adapter: `restart_recovery` (report-only), `restart_recovery_control_plane` (budgeted) and `restart_provider_load` (report-only). - All three have outage time removed. - `tests/restart-chaos/ttft-baseline.ts`: the recovery table adds a "Paperclip share" column. - Docs: `doc/run-log-events.md` (metric and payload) and the speed-budget table in `doc/plans/2026-11-07-durable-ownership-and-reconciliation.md`. ## Verification - `server`: `npx vitest run src/services/native-runtime/native-speed-budgets.test.ts`, 18 passed. Two new tests: - a recovery dominated by provider load does not breach; - a slow Paperclip share breaches with `restartTotalMs` and `providerLoadMs`, even when the provider span is committed after the provider event. The existing recovery tests moved to the new metric. All six were red before the trace change. - `tests/restart-chaos`: `npx vitest run --config tests/restart-chaos/vitest.config.ts wave-speed.test.ts ttft-baseline-stats.test.ts`, 29 passed. New tests cover the sample split and the grader rows (a judged share, a report-only provider load, zero breaches). - Server typecheck: no errors in the touched files. ## Risks - **Lower sensitivity to provider-side slowdowns.** A provider regression in session load no longer breaches. It stays visible in the report-only rows and in breach payloads. - **Runs with no `provider.session.load` span** (reattach, or an adapter that doesn't emit it) are judged on the full latency against the control-plane budget. That's conservative. - **Run-log consumers that filter on `metric: "restart_recovery"`** see `restart_recovery_control_plane` from now on. The doc notes the change date. ## 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
|
ad2304dc88 |
fix(chat): recover a held conversation turn's answer after a restart (#20204)
## 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 turn can end while its task stays held: a pending approval, an execution stage or a dependency blocker keeps the status. > - #20179 made live run completion post that held turn's answer. It added `conversationTurnAnswered()`. > - Background presentation recovery still required a `conversation_turn_finished` decision and a `done` result. > - If the server restarts between the status commit and the live presentation, recovery skips the held turn. The person never gets an answer. > - Restarts are product failures. A committed answer must not be lost. > - This pull request makes recovery use the same answered rule as the live path, through one shared helper. > - The benefit is that a held turn's answer reaches the chat exactly once, with or without a restart. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20179 (live fix; this PR closes the "Known gap" in its Risks section). **What happened** In an Agent Chat, the agent resubmitted a hire approval and ended its turn with a yielded result. The finalizer committed `governed_response_waiting` and moved the task to `in_review`. The server restarted before run completion posted the reply. Background presentation recovery found the run as a candidate, but declined it, because it accepted only `conversation_turn_finished` with a `done` result. No reply was posted. The run stayed a pending presentation candidate. **Expected behavior** After a restart, recovery posts the held turn's final answer exactly once. It never posts a second copy when the live path already presented the answer. When the turn's own question or confirmation card presents it, recovery posts nothing and records that decision, as the live path does. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open an Agent Chat. Link a pending hire approval to the chat task. 2. Let the agent end the turn with a yielded result and a `response_wake` continuation. The status decision commits as `governed_response_waiting`. 3. Stop the server after the status commit and before run completion presents the reply. 4. Start the server. Presentation recovery runs. 5. See that the chat shows no reply. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-governance.ts`: add `conversationTurnPresentsAnswer()`. It is the one rule for whether a successful conversation turn's prose is its answer: `conversation_turn_finished`, or a committed decision with no pending card of the turn (`conversationTurnAnswered()`). - `server/src/services/heartbeat/run-completion.ts`: the live path calls the shared helper. No change in behavior. - `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-run-finalizer.ts` (`recoverCommittedNativeChatResponse`): - A current conversation turn no longer needs `conversation_turn_finished`. The turn must still be the unsettled current turn: same agent, user, session generation, `conversationState: active`, and no other execution run. A `conversation_turn_finished` turn still needs `in_progress`. - A conversation turn with a `yielded` result is accepted next to `done`. - The resolver gets `conversationTurnFinished` from the shared helper. - When the turn's own card presents it, recovery records `presentationDecision: none` (reason `committed_conversation_interaction_presented`) and settles the conversation turn, like the live path. The run then leaves the pending presentation set. Before, such a run stayed a candidate. - `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-response-presentation-query.ts`: the candidate prefilter matches the same turns: any committed reason for an active conversation turn, and `yielded` conversation results. - `server/src/services/native-runtime/agent-chat-response-recovery.test.ts`: restart regressions with the real finalizer and a real database. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: state that recovery applies the same rule. ## Verification - Failing first. With only the new tests applied, 5 of 7 new cases failed: pending approval, revision-requested approval, execution stage (all yielded), pending approval with `done`, and the own-card case. The run was a candidate, but recovery posted nothing and did not settle it. - After the fix: `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/native-runtime/agent-chat-response-recovery.test.ts src/services/heartbeat/run-completion.test.ts src/__tests__/idle-native-finalization.test.ts src/services/presentation-ownership-read.test.ts src/services/chat-monitor-continuation.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/native-preserved-monitor-wait.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/native-response-publication-retry.test.ts src/services/heartbeat/run-lifecycle.test.ts src/__tests__/scoped-deadline-work.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/paperclip-control-plane-port.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-summary.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts`: 12 files, 627 tests passed. - The new cases check: - Held turns: the run is a candidate, the check posts the exact final answer once, the presentation decision is recorded, the run leaves the candidate set, and a second recovery returns false with one comment. - Live already presented: no candidate, no second comment. - Own question card: no comment, `presentationDecision: none`, the card stays pending, the conversation settles to `waiting`, and the run leaves the candidate set. - Previous-release live decision `none` (`yielded_control_plane_wait`): kept, not re-presented. - `tsc --noEmit -p server`: no errors in changed files. Four unrelated errors remain in this local worktree (`esbuild` not linked in `native-harness-prestage.test.ts`, and a linked-package type mismatch in `run-dispatch/adapters/postgres.ts`). - Turn start: no change. The helper runs only in run completion (after the provider turn ends) and in background presentation recovery. Nothing new runs before `turn.start`, and no files move. The live path keeps the same queries: it short-circuits on `conversation_turn_finished`, and otherwise runs the same card read as before. ## Risks - Low to medium. Recovery can now post the answer of a conversation turn whose task is held. This matches the live path since #20179. - A card-presented turn found by recovery is now settled with `presentationDecision: none`. Before, it stayed a pending candidate and kept the presentation worker (and idle-sleep checks) busy. - A `conversation_turn_finished` turn keeps the `in_progress` check. Held turns accept any status their gate committed. The unsettled-turn checks (active conversation state, session generation, execution run) still block stale or superseded turns. - Previous-release state: no persisted shape changes. A run committed by the previous release with no saved presentation decision (the restart window) is recovered by the new code. The test fixture uses the unchanged finalizer, so it saves exactly the previous release's shape. A run whose live path already recorded a decision keeps it. A held turn that the previous release recorded as `yielded_control_plane_wait` is not re-presented, so no late duplicate or stale reply appears. - Not changed: generic stranded-work recovery in `recovery/service.ts` still skips only `conversation_turn_finished` runs during the publication window. > 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 5.5
|
990de1e0bf |
perf(environments): release a stopped plugin task once (#20203)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Plugin environment drivers with `supportsTasks` run agents as provider tasks, and warm runs keep a parked task for the next run > - A follow-up run can find that its parked task already stopped. Core then retires that task before it acquires a new one > - Core sent `stop`, `status`, and `complete` in the settle step. Then the plugin release hook sent `stop`, `status`, and `complete` again for the same task. Every call was on the critical path of the new run > - This pull request removes the repeated calls and keeps every call that does work no other call does > - The benefit is a faster start for a run whose parked task already stopped ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No issue exists. This follows the enhancement template. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The release of a plugin task lease that has already stopped. This occurs when a follow-up run finds that its parked warm task stopped. **Subsystem affected** Server: plugin environment drivers and the plugin Runner task lifecycle. **Current behavior** Core sends `stop`, `status`, and `complete` in the settle step. Then the plugin release hook sends `stop`, `status`, and `complete` again for the same task. Core also sends `stop` after resume already saw that the task stopped. On a hosted test deployment, 8 of 40 follow-up runs took this path. From the resume to the new acquire, these runs spent P50 1014 ms and P90 1080 ms. These 8 runs are the full overall P90 (1275 ms). **Proposed behavior** Core does not call the release hook when settle confirmed the stop and completed the same task. After a resume with no lease, Core sends `status` first, and sends `stop` only when `status` does not confirm the stop. **Reason and benefit** The repeated calls do no new work. Removing them saves about 355 ms, plus the `stop` share of about 187 ms, for each such run. These numbers are modeled from trace timings. **Breaking changes** None for the plugin API. A task driver must release task-scoped resources in its `status` or `complete` handling. The doc now says this. **Additional context** The settle `status` stays. Providers release task storage there, and it records the stop that gates the credential writeback and `complete`. ## What Changed - `settleDispatchedEnvironmentTask` now returns `"completed"` when it confirmed the stop and completed the task in this call, `"stopped"` when the lease was already settled, and `false` otherwise. - The plugin driver release does not call `environmentReleaseLease` when settle returned `"completed"`. In all other cases it calls the hook as before. - When `environmentResumeLease` returns no provider lease, the release sends `status` first. It sends `stop` (and a second `status`) only when that `status` does not confirm `executionStopped: true`. Startup and startup-cleanup leases keep the old `stop` first order. - The cleanup sweep (`retryPendingSandboxTeardown`) and `destroyRunLease` do not change. A settle failure still leaves the lease in `pending_cleanup`, and the sweep runs `stop`, `status`, `complete`, and the release hook. - `doc/plugins/PLUGIN_RUNNER_EXECUTION.md` tells drivers about the new order and that task-scoped resources must be released in `status` or `complete`. ### Dispatch count for a stopped parked task (resume to new acquire) | | Calls | | --- | --- | | Before | resume, stop, status, (credentials), complete, release hook (stop, status, complete), acquire: 9 provider calls (10 with Codex writeback) | | After | resume, status, (credentials), complete, acquire: 4 provider calls (5 with Codex writeback) | The modeled saving is about 540 ms for each such run: about 355 ms for the repeated release, and about 187 ms for the settle `stop` and `status`. This pull request keeps the settle `status`, so the real saving is about 355 ms plus the `stop` share of the 187 ms. These numbers are modeled from trace timings. They are not measured on this branch. ### What covers each removed call - Release hook `stop`, `status`, `complete`: settle already sent `stop` and `status` and checked `executionStopped: true` for the same task id (`lease.providerLeaseId`), then sent `complete`. The skip uses settle's success as its condition, not the code path. - Settle `stop` after a resume with no lease: the next `status` must report `executionStopped: true`. If it does not, Core sends `stop` and `status` as before. ### What each kept call protects - Settle `status`: providers release task storage and cancel preparations here. It also writes `runnerTaskExecutionStopped`, which the credential writeback and the `complete` bookkeeping need. - Credential writeback: Codex can rotate its token. The writeback must land before the new task installs credentials. It still runs inside `complete`, before the new acquire. - Settle `complete`: it retires every run lease that owned the task and clears the dispatch marker. - Release hook when settle did not complete a dispatched task in this call: the provider may still hold the lease. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `npx vitest run src/__tests__/plugin-warm-tasks.integration.test.ts src/__tests__/plugin-task-credential-writeback.test.ts src/__tests__/environment-task-runtime.test.ts` - Related suites: `environment-runtime`, `plugin-runner-task.integration`, `task-creation-recovery.integration`, `heartbeat-plugin-environment`, `native-startup-cleanup-recovery`, `plugin-environment-driver-ready-recovery`, `environment-task-authority.integration`, `native-workspace-warm-reuse`, `remote-workspaces.integration`, `legacy-workspace-restore-recovery`, `plugin-task-source-recovery.integration`, `managed-plugin-environments`. Locally, all of these pass except `heartbeat-plugin-environment` "inherits the instance default environment across companies…". That test also fails locally with the `origin/master` service files, so this change does not cause it. The existing `plugin-runner-task.integration` same-run replacement test now expects no release hook after a completed settle. New tests: - The stopped parked path sends exactly resume, `status`, `complete`, acquire. The `status` goes to the old task. - A resume with no lease for a task that still runs sends `status`, `stop`, `status`, `complete`. - A failure at `status`, `complete`, or `stop` leaves the lease in `pending_cleanup`, and the sweep then sends `stop`, `status`, `complete`, and the release hook. - With an observed stop, the Codex writeback runs before `complete`. A writeback failure leaves the lease for cleanup, and the retry writes back and completes. - A startup-cleanup lease still sends `stop` first. ## Risks - A third-party task driver that releases resources only in `onEnvironmentReleaseLease` would not get that call after a completed settle. The doc now states the requirement. The cleanup sweep still calls the hook after any failure. - A driver that returns no lease from resume while the task still runs costs one extra `status`. The behavior stays correct. - No migration. No API change for plugins. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), 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 - [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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 5.5
|
9046884811 |
perf(native-runtime): claim a parked Runner while the follow-up run prepares (#20195)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip Runner executes native agent runs. A host can park an idle
Runner (release it and freeze it) between runs, and resume it for the
next run on the same task.
> - A follow-up run that reuses a parked Runner must claim it first. The
claim is a bootstrap ticket, a checkpoint flush, and the plugin resume
that thaws the Runner.
> - Core made the claim only inside `attachRun`, after all of its
per-run preparation. The claim does not depend on that preparation, so
the two ran in series.
> - This pull request starts the claim while Core still prepares the
run. `attachRun` then waits for the claim that is already in progress.
> - The benefit is a shorter start for every follow-up run on a parked
Runner. The model below gives about 285 ms per run at P50.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists. The issue is described inline.
**What happened?**
A follow-up run that reuses a parked Runner claims the Runner only in
`attachRun`. Core calls `attachRun` after backend setup: runner
environment, assigned MCP tools, tool authority and the plugin task
owner. The claim waits for all of this, but it uses none of it.
**Expected behavior**
The claim runs at the same time as backend setup. Everything that needs
the new run's tool authority stays at attach.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a Codex or Claude task on a host that parks Runners between runs.
2. Let the run finish and the Runner park.
3. Send a follow-up. Before this change, the plugin resume starts only
after backend setup ends.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at
|
||
|
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 5.5
|
b4a77b8915 |
perf(plugins): read runtime identity in one statement without a row lock (#20192)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Lifecycle plugins read the agent runtime identity through the plugin
host
> - The identity read used the full-state path. That path locks the
agent row and runs 11 statements
> - Plugins call the identity read many times as a freshness fence, so
each round trip adds to the run latency
> - This pull request makes the identity read one statement on the
request pool, without a row lock, and loads instance secrets with their
versions in one statement
> - The benefit is fewer round trips per read (11 to 4) and no wait
behind writers that hold the agent row
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The plugin host read of the agent runtime identity
(`pluginAgentRuntimeIdentity`).
**Subsystem affected**
Server: plugin agent runtime state and instance secrets
(`server/src/services/plugin-agent-runtime-state.ts`,
`server/src/services/secrets.ts`).
**Current behavior**
The identity read shares the full-state transaction. It opens a
transaction on the file-storage pool and locks the agent row with `FOR
UPDATE`. It reads the plugin, the company settings and the latest
lifecycle event in separate statements. Then it reloads each instance
secret and its version one at a time. One read costs 11 statements. It
also waits behind any writer that holds the agent row, for example
managed file publication.
**Proposed behavior**
The identity read is one statement on the request pool. The statement
joins the plugin and the company settings, and reads the latest
lifecycle event id in a subquery. The agent fields, the authorization
inputs and the revision come from one snapshot. Instance secrets load
together with their latest versions in one statement. One read costs 4
statements.
**Reason and benefit**
A resumed agent run makes about 7 identity reads on its critical path in
a hosted deployment. With a 4 ms round trip, the modeled saving is about
330 ms per run at P50.
## What Changed
- `pluginAgentRuntimeIdentity` reads the agent, plugin, company settings
and latest lifecycle event id in one statement on the request pool. It
does not take a row lock.
- The authorization check moves into `assertOwningLifecyclePlugin`. The
identity path and the full-state path both use it, so both fail with the
same forbidden error.
- A missing agent still returns `null` before authorization runs.
- The full-state path (`readState`) keeps its transaction and its `FOR
UPDATE` lock. It no longer has an identity-only branch.
- `instanceSecrets.read` loads each secret with its latest version
through a left join in one statement. `resolveSecretValueInternal`
accepts these preloaded rows and skips the reload when the secret and
the version match. It still reloads when they do not match.
- The two audit writes per resolved secret run concurrently, as before.
- Tests:
- `agent-runtime-hooks.test.ts` compares the identity read with the full
read across revisions, lifecycle changes and secret changes, and across
every forbidden case. It confirms that forbidden reads record no secret
access. It confirms that the identity read does not wait for a held
agent row lock.
- `agent-instance-secrets.test.ts` confirms that a read of rotated
secrets uses one select and returns the latest values. It confirms that
each read records an access event. It confirms that a revoked version
fails with `version_inactive` and a missing version fails with
`version_missing`.
### Why dropping the lock is safe
The lock exists for the full-state path. That path projects instruction
files under the agent lock. The identity path does no projection. It
also released the lock before it returned, so no caller could rely on
the lock.
### Unchanged behavior
- Authorization: the same plugin, settings, capability and
required-plugin checks, with the same forbidden error.
- Decryption: the same provider resolution from the version material.
- Scope checks and version status checks: the same checks on the same
rows.
- Audit: the same `lastResolvedAt` update and access event for each
resolved secret.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk
build`
- `pnpm --dir server run typecheck`: pass.
- Targeted tests: pass (6 files, 174 tests).
```
pnpm --dir server exec vitest run \
src/__tests__/agent-runtime-hooks.test.ts \
src/__tests__/agent-instance-secrets.test.ts \
src/__tests__/project-instance-secrets.test.ts \
src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts \
src/__tests__/agent-runtime-assignments.test.ts \
src/__tests__/agent-runtime-skills.test.ts
```
- CI runs the full suite.
### Benchmark
A local benchmark ran against the embedded test Postgres. A delay proxy
simulated network round trips.
| Condition | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Statements per read | 11 | 4 |
| P50, no added delay | 2.38 ms | 1.47 ms |
| P50, 4 ms round trip | 104.0 ms | 32.2 ms |
| P50, 4 ms round trip, prepared statements | 51.9 ms | 16.3 ms |
The new read costs about 0.3× the old read in round trips. In a hosted
deployment, a resumed agent run makes about 7 of these reads on its
critical path. The modeled saving is about 330 ms per run at P50.
## Risks
- Low risk.
- The identity read no longer runs in the same snapshot as a concurrent
writer that holds the agent row. It can return the state from before
that write commits. The `revision` field still comes from the same
snapshot as the agent fields, so callers that use it as a freshness
fence see a consistent pair.
- The identity read now runs on the request pool, not the file-storage
pool. It adds one short query to the request pool and removes one
transaction from the file-storage pool.
- The preloaded secret path applies only when the secret and the version
match the rows from the join. Any other case falls back to the existing
reload.
- No migration. No API change.
> 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, through 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
- [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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
3964ee1fca |
fix(native): a governance pause Stop with no turn result stays a cancellation (#20186)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A budget hard stop pauses the company; the pause's lifecycle Stop cancels the agents' running native turns > - When a Codex turn is interrupted this way, it ends without a semantic result > - The native executor treated that missing result as a retryable interruption, so it rewrote the cancelled run to `failed` and scheduled an exact resume > - The pause held that recovery, and Raise budget and resume continues only runs that are still cancelled, so the task stayed blocked with no new run > - This pull request makes the executor treat an acknowledged governance pause Stop like a person's Stop: the run stays cancelled > - The benefit is that Raise budget and resume continues the task (#20144), with no manual Retry ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20144 (resume continues budget-stopped work), #20143 (governance pause stops are not failures), #20113 **What happened?** Restart-chaos wave w-20261109T051242-s9802 (H1, seed 9802), task t03 (Codex, fault K2). The company budget crossed its hard limit at 05:19:39.9. The pause's lifecycle Stop ("Agent lifecycle stop requested") cancelled run 59e976bc at 05:19:40.05, and Codex acknowledged the interrupt. The turn ended without a semantic result, and at 05:19:41.27 the executor rewrote the run to `failed` / `native_session_interrupted`, with an agent-owned `active_run_watchdog` recovery (exact checkpoint resume). The task went to `blocked`. After `raise_budget_and_resume` at 05:20:20, no run started for 14 minutes. **Expected behavior** A pause's Stop is intentional. The run stays cancelled with its pause record, and resuming continues the task once. **Steps to reproduce** Pause a company for budget while a Codex native turn runs, so the Stop interrupts the turn before it records a result. Before this change, the run becomes `failed` with a scheduled exact resume instead of staying `cancelled`. ## What Changed - `native-session-executor.ts`: the no-semantic-result branch now also accepts an acknowledged governance pause Stop (`isGovernancePauseStop` with an acknowledged native Stop receipt) as an intentional stop. It settles the coordinator as `native_retry_cancelled` and raises `NativeCancellationPendingRecoveryError`, as it already does for a person's Stop and for a reassignment. The run is not rewritten to `failed`, and no recovery action is created. - The Stop's cancellation record is written by its fence before dispatch, so the check does not depend on whether the terminal write has landed. ## Verification - `native-session-executor.test.ts`: new cases for "Agent lifecycle stop requested" with a `pauseStop`, and for "Cancelled due to budget pause". Each was red before the fix (it reached the retryable-failure write) and is green now. A control case shows that a system lifecycle Stop without `pauseStop` (termination) still takes the retry path. - Full `native-session-executor.test.ts`: 1309 passed. Server typecheck (`typecheck-layers`, low-memory): no errors. - Not run: the H1 chaos rerun. Phase 3 runs it after merge. ## Risks - A governance pause Stop that lands during a turn no longer schedules an exact resume of that turn. The task continues on resume through a new Retry (#20144) instead. - Termination and cleanup use the same lifecycle Stop reason. They are excluded because only the pausing path records `pauseStop`. > 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, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test execution). Extended reasoning enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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
|
7c65a2f479 |
fix(authz): link plugin settings and say reply now on board-only denials (#20182)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Chat agents run with agent credentials, and plugin management routes are board-only > - A board-only denial tells the agent the denial is final and links the board page that holds the control, when the page is known (#20151) > - Plugin routes had no known page, so the denial said "link a page only if you already know its route" > - In a chat eval, an agent asked to finish configuring a plugin got this denial and kept searching the API for about two minutes, so it did not answer in time > - This pull request names the plugin manager, or that plugin's settings page, in the denial > - The benefit is that the agent can hand the step to the person with a working link right away ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20151 **What happened** An agent that called a board-only plugin route (for example `GET /api/plugins` or `POST /api/plugins/:pluginId/config`) got the generic remediation with no page. In the `plugins.configure-plugin` chat eval, the agent kept calling `search_api` for another plugin route after the 403 and did not reply within the 150-second window. **Expected behavior** The denial names the page where a board user does the step: the plugin manager (`/<prefix>/company/settings/instance/plugins`) or the plugin's settings page (`/<prefix>/company/settings/instance/plugins/<id or key>`). No link is given when the operator hides plugin management (`PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS=instance.plugins`). **Steps to reproduce** 1. Install a plugin. 2. As an agent, call `POST /api/plugins/<pluginId>/config`. 3. See a 403 `board_access_required` remediation without a plugin page. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/authz.ts`: board-only denials on `/api/plugins` routes link the plugin manager, or the plugin's settings page when the path names a plugin UUID or key. The plugin settings page accepts either. No link when plugin management is hidden. - `server/src/routes/authz.ts`: every agent board-only denial now says to stop working on the denied step and reply now. With the plugin link alone, the eval agent still searched the API for two more minutes. - `server/src/routes/authz.ts`: any manifest-format plugin key (including dot-free keys such as `my-plugin`) gets a direct link; plugin manager endpoints (`examples`, `install`, `tools`, `ui-contributions`) link the plugin list. - `ui/src/pages/PluginSettings.tsx`: custom settings slots match by plugin key as well as plugin id, so a page opened by key shows the plugin's own settings. - `server/src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts`: cases for list, install, config by id, disable by key, a dot-free key, manager endpoints, and the hidden-settings case. `ui/src/pages/PluginSettings.test.tsx`: opening the page by key mounts that plugin's settings slot. - Merged `master`, keeping its project access-members denial cases. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/execution-workspace-runtime-lease-route.test.ts`: 241 passed after merging master. - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/pages/PluginSettings.test.tsx`: 9 passed; the new key-route case fails without the `PluginSettings` change. - `cd server && pnpm typecheck`: passes. ## Risks - Low risk. Only the remediation text of agent board-only denials on `/api/plugins` routes changes. Board users and authorization do not change. ## 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
|
492316e576 |
fix(plugins): accept secret_ref bindings in string secret-ref config fields (#20181)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Plugins declare their settings in an `instanceConfigSchema`, and the
server validates each save against that schema
> - Plugin credential fields use `type: "string", format: "secret-ref"`
> - The settings form, the plugin secrets handler and the plugin SDK all
use the `{ type: "secret_ref", secretId, version }` binding object for
these fields, and the secrets handler rejects a bare secret id
> - Schema validation ran on the raw config, so the binding object
failed with "must be string" and no value could be saved
> - This pull request validates the binding's secret id in place of the
binding object
> - The benefit is that an operator can bind a company secret to a
plugin credential field from the settings page or the API
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
`POST /api/plugins/:pluginId/config` returned 400 "Configuration does
not match the plugin's instanceConfigSchema" with
`{"field":"/apiKey","message":"must be string"}` when the config held `{
"apiKey": { "type": "secret_ref", "secretId": "<uuid>", "version":
"latest" } }` for a field declared `{ "type": "string", "format":
"secret-ref" }`. A bare UUID string passes the schema but the secrets
handler then rejects it ("must use { type: \"secret_ref\", secretId,
version? }"). So no value could be saved for a required secret-ref
field.
**Expected behavior**
The binding object that the settings form submits and that
`ctx.secrets.resolve()` accepts is saved. Other schema rules still
apply.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Install a plugin whose manifest has
`instanceConfigSchema.properties.apiKey = { "type": "string", "format":
"secret-ref" }`.
2. Create a company secret.
3. On the plugin settings page, pick that secret for the field and click
Save Configuration (or POST the binding object to
`/api/plugins/:pluginId/config`).
4. See the 400 "must be string" response.
Found while getting the chat eval cases `plugins.configure-plugin` and
`plugins.disable-plugin` to run. Their setup and the human's
settings-page save both hit this error.
## What Changed
- `validateInstanceConfig` now replaces each valid `secret_ref` binding
object at a schema `format: "secret-ref"` path with its secret id before
Ajv validates. The stored config and the config sent to the worker do
not change.
- The walk follows array `items` (single and tuple) and objects inside
arrays as well as object properties and `allOf`/`anyOf`/`oneOf`, so
secret pickers inside array fields can save too.
- A binding is accepted only when `envBindingSecretRefSchema` (the
secrets handler's own parser) accepts it, so validation and the secrets
handler agree on what is a valid binding.
- Malformed bindings and objects in ordinary string fields still fail
validation.
- Added `server/src/__tests__/plugin-config-validator.test.ts`.
## Verification
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/plugin-config-validator.test.ts
src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts
src/__tests__/plugin-sandbox-provider-config-validation.test.ts`: 48
passed.
- The new test fails on `master` without the fix (3 of 3 fail) and
passes with it.
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/plugin-config-validator.test.ts`: 6 passed after the
array/parser follow-up; the 3 follow-up tests fail on the previous
commit.
- `cd server && pnpm typecheck`: passes.
## Risks
- Low risk. Only configs that held a valid binding object at a declared
secret-ref path change result, from a 400 to accepted. The secrets
handler still checks that the secret belongs to the company.
## 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
|
7d92b6a7cd |
fix(api): use a neutral catalog pointer in the call_api protocol refusal (#20191)
## Thinking Path
- Paperclip agents reach REST routes through the `call_api` tool;
protocol endpoints (MCP, OAuth, WebSocket) are refused there with
guidance.
- #20170 changed that refusal to tell the agent the endpoint's catalog
description says who can use it.
- Review on #20170 found that some protocol endpoints' descriptions (for
example the WebSocket entries) do not say who may call them, so the
refusal could send the agent to look for information that is not there.
- The fix (
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
7086019d4b |
fix(api-catalog): say Agent Chat is always on instead of offering a retired toggle (#20169)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents learn what the API can do from the API catalog at `/api/openapi.json` > - PR #19360 made Agent Chat standard. The `enableAgentChat` key is now retired: it always reads true, and the app ignores written values > - The catalog still lists `enableAgentChat` as an ordinary boolean on the experimental settings operations, with no note that it is retired > - An agent that was asked to "Enable Agent Chat on this instance" read the catalog and told the person to turn on a toggle in Instance Settings → Experimental. That toggle no longer exists > - This pull request adds a note to both experimental settings operations: Agent Chat is always on, the key is retired, and agents must tell people it is already on > - The benefit is that agents give a correct answer and do not send people to a control that is not there ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Bug report (no public issue exists). **What happened** An agent was asked "Enable Agent Chat on this instance." It read `PATCH /api/instance/settings/experimental` in the API catalog and found `enableAgentChat`. It replied that an admin must open Instance Settings → Experimental and turn on Enable Agent Chat. That toggle was removed in #19360, and Agent Chat is already on for everyone. **Expected behavior** The agent says that Agent Chat is already on (the person is using it), and that nothing must be enabled. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a chat with an agent on any current instance. 2. Send "Enable Agent Chat on this instance." 3. The agent reads the experimental settings operation in the API catalog and sends you to a settings toggle that does not exist. Refs #19360 ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: the GET and PATCH `/api/instance/settings/experimental` operations now say that Agent Chat is always on, that `enableAgentChat` is a retired compatibility key that always reads true and ignores written values, and that agents must tell people it is already on instead of sending them to a toggle. - `server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts`: a regression test checks this note on both operations. - The note says Agent Chat "needs no setup" instead of "there is nothing to enable", so it does not match unrelated keyword searches. The runner API no-results test (`nothing-zzzzzzzzzz`) had matched the word "nothing". ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` passes (2108 tests), and the server `tsc --noEmit` passes. - The chat eval `instance-operations.instance-settings` found this defect. Its run log shows that the agent reasoned from the catalog schema ("The setting is `enableAgentChat` on PATCH /api/instance/settings/experimental"). ## Risks - Low risk. This changes only catalog description text. It does not change behavior, validation or the schema. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution, used through 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
|
b07399c241 |
fix(authz): link the project's access settings when an agent cannot share a project (#20176)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Some actions are board-only. When an agent calls one, the 403 denial tells it that the denial is final and, when known, links the board page that holds the control > - Project sharing (`/api/projects/:id/access-members`) had no known page, so the denial told agents to link a page only if they already knew its route > - An agent asked to "Let Riley see the acquisition project" got this denial. It told the person to look for "access/sharing settings" and gave no link, so the person had to search for the control > - This pull request maps project access-member routes to the project's Configuration page, where the Manage access control is > - The benefit is that agents give people a direct link to the control that shares a private project ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Bug report (no public issue exists). **What happened** An agent tried to add a person to a private project. `POST /api/projects/:id/access-members` returned 403 "Board access required" without a page link. The agent told the person to find the project's access or sharing settings in the web app and gave no link. **Expected behavior** The denial links the project's Configuration page (`/<prefix>/projects/<id>/configuration`), where Manage access is. The agent gives that link to the person. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a private project and give an agent access to it. 2. In chat, ask the agent to let another company member see the project. 3. The agent's access-member request is denied, and its reply has no link to the sharing control. Refs #20151 ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/authz.ts`: board-only denials for `/projects/:id/access-members` (and its member subpaths) link "the project's access settings" at `/<prefix>/projects/<id>/configuration`. The link uses the resolved route project ID, so short references such as `/api/projects/acquisition/access-members` also get the link. Without a resolved UUID, the denial falls back to the generic instruction. - `server/src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts`: cases for add and remove access-member denials, plus a short-reference case that goes through a route param resolver. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts` passes (17 tests). The short-reference test fails on the previous matcher. The server `tsc --noEmit` passes. - The chat eval `projects.share-project` found this gap: in one run the agent linked the project, and in the next run it gave no link. ## Risks - Low risk. This changes only the remediation text in an agent's 403 response. It does not change authorization. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution, used through 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
|
2fc0293586 |
fix(api): tell agents only the person can revoke assistant connections, and where (#20170)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - People connect external assistants to Paperclip, and each person
manages their own assistant connections in the browser
> - Chat agents find API routes through `search_api` and call them with
`call_api`
> - The catalog entries for `/api/mcp/connections` did not say who can
use them or which page holds the control
> - `call_api` refuses these routes as protocol endpoints, and its
message did not say the refusal is final
> - A chat agent asked to "disconnect my old assistant" searched for an
agent route for its whole turn and did not reply
> - This pull request names the person-only boundary and the page in the
catalog, and makes the refusal final
> - The benefit is that the agent replies at once with a link to the
page where the person revokes the connection
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists. This is a bug report.
**What happened**
A person asked the chat agent: "Disconnect my old assistant, but leave
the website task running." The agent found `DELETE
/api/mcp/connections/{id}`. `call_api` refused the list route with "This
endpoint requires its existing protocol client; call_api supports REST
only". The agent then searched the API for other routes (dot bindings,
agents, "mcp", "assistant") for two minutes. The turn timed out with no
reply. The agent wrote in its reasoning that there "must be a supported
path".
**Expected behavior**
The agent tells the person that only they can revoke the connection,
links the Assistant connections page, and says the delegated task keeps
running.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Connect two assistants to a company as one person. Let the first
assistant create a task for an agent.
2. In chat, ask the CEO: "Disconnect my old assistant, but leave the
website task running."
3. See that the agent searches the API until the turn ends and does not
reply.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: the `GET /api/mcp/connections` and
`DELETE /api/mcp/connections/{id}` entries now have a description. It
says only the signed-in person can list or revoke their assistant
connections, links `[Assistant
connections](/<prefix>/apps/assistant-connection)`, notes that the
connected assistant itself can revoke its own token through OAuth token
revocation, says not to search for another route, and says that tasks
the assistant already created keep running.
- `server/src/services/native-runtime/runner-api-client.ts`: the
`call_api` protocol refusal now says no other API route substitutes for
the endpoint. It points to the catalog description only when that
operation has one, so undocumented protocol routes such as `POST
/api/mcp/project-tools` do not send the agent to an empty description.
- `server/src/__tests__/assistant-connections-guidance.test.ts`: new
regression test. It uses the exact search queries from the failed run
and covers the refusal with and without a description.
- `server/src/__tests__/public-mcp.test.ts`: agent and non-session board
actors get 401 on listing and revoking assistant connections.
## Verification
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/assistant-connections-guidance.test.ts
src/__tests__/primary-agent-guidance.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` passes (2111 tests).
After the review fixes,
`src/__tests__/assistant-connections-guidance.test.ts
src/__tests__/public-mcp.test.ts
src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` passes (2157 tests), and
the server `tsc --noEmit` passes.
- The new test fails on `master` without the change (2 failures) and
passes with it.
- The end-to-end check is the
`assistant-connections.revoke-personal-grant` chat eval with this commit
cherry-picked.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change is catalog text and one error message. No route,
permission or data behavior changes.
## 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>
|
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
9b71d03215 |
fix: recover interrupted native preparations and unblock upgrades (#20177)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI-agent companies and their work. > - A native run prepares its workspace before a runner PID or checkpoint exists. > - A server crash can interrupt that stage and leave its controller on another host. > - Recovery needs a durable owner proof, a delivered recovery wake, and the saved execution contract. > - The old paths missed controller lease registration and boot proof, skipped checkpoint-free preparations, and counted retained work as live upgrade blockers. > - This PR connects preparation to the existing controller lease and recovery paths, and separates retained work from the upgrade census. > - The result is bounded recovery without a second executor or loss of saved work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native preparation interrupted by a server crash could remain running indefinitely with no runner PID or checkpoint. Native controller stamps did not wake the shared instance lease. That lease was disabled on volume-backed Railway services, and native takeover omitted the boot binding needed for its cross-host proof. Scoped recovery selected checkpoint-backed runs but skipped these preparations. The upgrade probe then counted the retained row as current execution and could block every later upgrade. **Expected behavior** Track the preparation's controller before a runner starts. Recover it through the normal classifier after proving its owner stopped or fencing that boot. Keep live or unprovable owners held. Deliver recovery wakes to preparations without checkpoints. Preserve unresolved historical work and report it separately from current execution during upgrade observations. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Save an observed native preparation with no runner process, result, provider-start evidence or checkpoint. 2. Replace its controller with a process in another PID space. Let its owner lease expire and send a scoped recovery wake. 3. Before this fix, recovery skips the checkpoint-free preparation or cannot prove its foreign controller stopped. Upgrade readiness continues to count that old row as a live blocker. Related work: #18037, #19651, #19868, and #20168. The foreign-PID guard from #19868 remains. The queued first-turn input fix from #20168 is included through the current base. ## What Changed - Register the existing instance lease when native execution and restart claims are written. Keep passive identity reads free of ownership effects. Keep that lease enabled on volume-backed Railway services unless explicitly disabled. - Preserve the existing PID/start-time proof within the same readable PID space. Bind foreign or unknown-space takeover to its saved boot and last write. A live lease or grace period keeps the run held with a scheduled check. Repeated evidence waits preserve their timestamp. - Include explicitly fenced, checkpoint-free preparations in the existing finite recovery candidate inventory. Normal launch, checkpoint, provider evidence and admission checks still decide whether work may resume. - Expose the existing board stop-confirmation operation for historical foreign-host owners. Bind confirmation to the exact run, boot, PID, process start and host. Reject changed ownership. - Report narrowly defined old, unowned preparations as `retainedBlockedRuns` outside the live upgrade census. Local executions, pending admission, drain state, truncation and positive checkpoint proof retain their barriers. - Update the execution contract and add PostgreSQL, real-route, race and preservation regressions. ## Verification - Genuine red/green regressions cover the old upgrade census, missing native lease registration, the volume-backed default, foreign-host confirmation, and scoped recovery skipping checkpoint-free preparation. Test bodies ran against real PostgreSQL before their corresponding production changes. - Combined verification before the final idle correction (head `055be6c84d9`): **459 passed, 22 skipped, 11 files passed**. Covers controller lease/identity, native restart classification and integration, host confirmation, heartbeat recovery, instance route authorization, upgrade readiness, and queued first-turn input. The focused command used `pnpm exec vitest run` with those 11 suites and `--maxWorkers=1 --no-file-parallelism`. The 22 skipped cases require the Rust debug fake-Codex fixture, which was not built locally; the real-process CI coverage must pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`: passed on head `055be6c84d9b058064daad0af71bb5d893ab9529`. - Actual route proof uses the real heartbeat service and PostgreSQL. Unauthorized access returns 403. The retained run and owner records remain unchanged. Recovery integration admits one bootstrap claim across two replacement controllers, keeps a live owner held, and preserves local execution. - `pnpm verify`: exit 2, requests broad CI because the execution contract changed. Full local suite not run. Current-head CI must supply broad coverage. - Local source checkout on macOS ARM64, Node v25.6.1, pnpm 9.15.4. Tests use isolated PostgreSQL. No live provider restart is claimed by those fixtures. - CI found an idle-query regression in the first version of the lease wiring. Two focused PostgreSQL regressions reproduced the misplaced identity-read notification and the missing claim notification. The fix moves registration to actual ownership writes. `env -u npm_execpath pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/maintenance-server-routes.test.ts --maxWorkers=1 --no-file-parallelism`: **17 passed**, including 90 real seconds and two qualified hourly windows with no extra idle queries. An initial local setup attempt inherited npm metadata and did not run tests; clearing that metadata selected the correct pnpm helper. Three focused controller/native suites also passed **168 tests, 22 fixture-gated skips**. Server typecheck passed after the correction on head `4a527326dcd5b3a9e286f0e4c3e761d3056af4d9`. - The older CI server shard also exposed a same-space graceful-restart regression. The new boot fallback had overridden local process-exit proof. Seven suspension cases and a focused unit regression reproduced it; the fix limits boot fallback to foreign or unknown PID spaces. Fresh verification on `acf1065d98150210c1e227c7f3b05a1eb489730b`: **251 passed, 22 fixture-gated skips, 4 files passed**, including all **40** graceful-restart suspension tests. Server typecheck passed. The local regression failed before this correction, and the same-space and foreign-space paths pass together after it. - Current-head CI completed successfully on `acf1065d98150210c1e227c7f3b05a1eb489730b` (run 42568109784). Greptile reviewed that exact head at 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. - Secret and private-data scans passed. No workflow, lockfile or migration changes. ## Risks - The instance lease now applies to volume-backed Railway services. Its existing 30-second renewal, quiescence, grace and self-fence behavior applies while work is held. Idle servers retain the existing no-query behavior. An explicit `PAPERCLIP_CONTROLLER_INSTANCE_LEASE=off` remains available. - A controller lease proves only the server owner's state. It does not prove an agent process stopped or authorize replay, resource release or volume removal. The existing classifier and provider/runner checks remain responsible for those decisions. - Previous-release records keep their shape and saved state. A missing boot lease stays unprovable and requires the scoped stop-confirmation path. A changed confirmation target is rejected. - The upgrade observation does not recover a held task by itself. Source tests do not qualify a hosted replacement. Deployment and the affected task's useful result must be verified separately. - This repairs recovery after a crash; it does not claim to identify or fix every source of heap exhaustion. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, xhigh reasoning effort, through Codex in T3 Code, with repository, shell, and GitHub tools. 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 5.5
|
2d93413085 |
perf(runner): prepare the next Claude provider generation at park (#20145)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip runs agents through Paperclip Runner, and a host can park
an idle Runner between runs and resume it for the next run on the same
task.
> - For Claude (ACPX), a follow-up run on a parked Runner pays about
1.5–2.3 s at `run.attach` before the provider can start the turn. The
attachment closes the Claude sidecar and spawns a new one: initialize,
`session.open` with `session/load`, `run.attach`, then a dormant verify.
> - The respawn is required. The tool-bridge MCP endpoint lasts for the
whole session and can't tell which turn a late callback came from, so a
new turn must not run in a process that ran an earlier one.
> - Nothing requires the respawn to happen at the *start* of the next
run. A turn that ends 2 s later is a better experience than one that
starts 2 s later.
> - This pull request does the respawn while parking. The next run's
`run.attach` then only rebinds the run id on a fresh, never-used
generation.
> - Follow-up Claude runs on a parked Runner reach the provider about
1.5–2 s sooner, and the late-callback guarantees are unchanged.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists. The issue is described inline.
### What happened?
On a hosted deployment with parked Runners, Claude follow-up runs
reached the provider about 1.8 s later than Codex follow-ups.
`runner.session.resume` medians were 5.2 s for Claude and 3.4 s for
Codex. The extra time is the ACPX respawn inside `run.attach`. Codex
keeps its process in place.
### Expected behavior
The respawn happens while the Runner parks, so the next run starts on a
prepared generation.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Run a Claude (ACPX) task on a host that parks Runners between runs.
2. Let the run finish and the Runner park.
3. Send a follow-up. `run.attach` closes the provider and starts,
initializes, opens and attaches a new sidecar before `turn.start`. The
Claude CLI itself starts at the first prompt on either path.
### Paperclip version or commit
`master` at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
95bf90bd2c |
fix(chat): post a conversation turn's answer while an approval holds the task (#20179)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People talk to agents in chat. The agent's final message becomes the chat reply. > - A chat turn can end while the task stays held. For example, the agent resubmits a hire approval and the approval is pending. > - The finalizer keeps the task in review for the approval (`governed_response_waiting`). That decision is not `conversation_turn_finished`. > - Run completion then treats the yielded turn as a control-plane wait. It records `presentationDecision: none` and posts no comment. > - The person never sees the agent's answer. The chat shows nothing after the request. > - This pull request counts a committed conversation turn as answered unless its own pending question or confirmation card presents it. > - The benefit is that the person always gets the reply, whatever state the task keeps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19971 (post the full final reply). That fix covers the reply text. This fix covers replies that were never posted. **What happened** In a chat, the person asked the CEO agent to change a proposed hire to a cheaper model and send it back for approval. The agent resubmitted the approval correctly. It called `paperclip_finish`, and Paperclip accepted the report with "task is still waiting for approval". The run succeeded and the task moved to `in_review`. The run event `run.presentation.resolved` recorded `commentAction: none` (reason `yielded_control_plane_wait` on master). The agent's final message never reached the chat. **Expected behavior** A chat turn's accepted final answer is always posted to the conversation. An approval, an execution stage or a dependency blocker can hold the task. It must not hide the reply. Only a question or confirmation card that the turn itself left pending presents the turn instead of its prose. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open an Agent Chat with an agent. Link a hire approval in `revision_requested` to the chat task. 2. Ask the agent to change the hire and resubmit it. 3. The agent resubmits the approval and ends the turn with a yielded result and a response wake. 4. See that the chat shows no reply. The run is `succeeded` and its presentation decision is `none`. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-governance.ts`: move the pending-card query of `pendingNativeGovernance()` into `pendingNativeInteraction()`, with no change in behavior. Add `conversationTurnAnswered()`. It returns false only when a pending thread interaction (the same predicate as status arbitration) gates the turn. It checks cards on their own, so a pending execution stage does not hide a card. - `server/src/services/heartbeat/run-completion.ts`: a successful conversation run whose status decision committed now passes `conversationTurnFinished: true` to the presentation resolver, unless `conversationTurnAnswered()` is false. The existing `conversation_turn_finished` path is unchanged. - `server/src/services/heartbeat/run-completion.test.ts`: add a regression table with a real database. A pending approval, a revision-requested approval, a pending execution stage and a dependency blocker now post the answer. A finished turn still posts. The turn's own question card still owns the response, also when an execution stage is pending. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: state the rule. Other finish outcomes I checked: - `done` or `needs_review` with a gate (`governed_gate_pending`): the result is not yielded, so the reply was already posted. - `blocked` (`paperclip_block`, waiting on a person or another task): not yielded, so the reply was already posted. - Yielded with a dependency blocker (`durable_dependency_blocker_bound`), or with `record_finalization_error` (`prior_status_preserved_no_live_path`, `monitor_wait_authority_lost`): the reply was also dropped. This fix covers them, because the rule does not depend on the reason code. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/heartbeat/run-completion.test.ts`: 118 passed. Before the fix, 4 new cases failed (both approval states, execution stage, dependency blocker). The finished-turn and question-card cases passed both before and after. - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-summary.test.ts src/services/heartbeat/run-comment-selection.test.ts src/__tests__/slack-conversation-lifecycle.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/agent-chat-response-recovery.test.ts src/__tests__/chat-run-milestone-governed-work.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts`: all passed. - `tsc --noEmit -p server`: no errors in the changed files. Unrelated errors in this worktree come from an unbuilt local Runner package. - An end-to-end chat eval run on the case branch is in progress. I will add its result here. ## Risks - Low risk. The change only affects successful Agent Chat runs with a committed status decision. Ordinary tasks and external chat (Slack, GitHub) keep their own paths. External chat returns before this check. - A turn that yields while an approval is pending now posts its prose. The approval stays pending and the task status does not change. - One extra small read (the task row and pending gates) runs after a conversation turn that is not `conversation_turn_finished`. It runs after the provider turn ends, so it does not add time before the first token. - Previous-release state: no persisted shape changes. The fix reads `finalizationPhase` and `finalizationReasonCode`, which the previous release already writes. A run in flight at the deploy completes on the new code and posts its reply. A run that completed before the deploy keeps its recorded decision; nothing re-presents it. - Known gap, unchanged: background presentation recovery for conversations still requires `conversation_turn_finished` with a `done` result. If the server restarts between the status commit and the live presentation, a held yielded turn is not re-posted. That is a separate 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 - 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
|
c5c587f162 |
fix(issues): start a deferred children-completed wake the release drain missed (#20180)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A parent that delegates waits for its children, and is woken when
they finish (`issue_children_completed`)
> - Restart chaos t06 ended with both children done and the parent
blocked forever
> - The children finished while the parent's run was still going, so the
wake was deferred as a follow-up. That run then ended with the agent
setting the parent blocked, and the deferred wake was never started
> - The durable re-drivers for deferred wakes cover only
`issue_blockers_resolved`, so nothing else picks up a missed
`issue_children_completed`
> - This pull request makes both re-drivers cover children-completed
wakes too
> - The benefit is that a parent always hears that its children
finished, even when the release drain misses the deferred wake
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #19831 (durable ownership plan). Restart chaos wave
`w-20261109T041248-s9501`, task t06 (claude, M1, K2), Daytona per-turn,
master
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
5a51a7685d |
fix(budgets): raise_budget_and_resume continues the work its budget stopped, once (#20144)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A budget hard stop cancels the scope's running work; the board resolves it with Raise budget and resume > - In the restart-chaos H1 scenario, the cancelled tasks did not continue after resume and each needed a manual Retry > - Resume is the board's explicit decision to continue, so the work it stopped should continue once, as if the board clicked Retry > - This pull request files that Retry automatically, keyed by the cancelled run, once the run's stop has settled > - The benefit is that a budget raise restores the work without manual Retries, without repeating completed work, and without charging the run's attempt budget ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20143 (bug B; this PR builds on it), #20113 (bug A), #20101 (superseded: split into #20143 and this PR) **What happened?** Restart-chaos waves w-20261108T195944-s42 and w-20261108T210118-s9802 (H1). After `raise_budget_and_resume`, CHA-3's budget-cancelled run (enforcement stop) and CHA-1's run (agent lifecycle pause from the budget hold) stayed cancelled until someone clicked Retry. **Expected behavior** Resuming continues each task its budget stopped, exactly once, with no attempt charged, an activity entry, and no repeat of work that already continued. A run a person stopped stays stopped. **Steps to reproduce** Set a budget below spend while a task runs; let the stop cancel the run; resolve with Raise budget and resume. Before this change, no new run is queued. ## What Changed - New table `budget_resume_claims` (migration 0451). One row per cancelled run, outside the run's result JSON, so a Stop that settles during the resume cannot erase it. - `markBudgetCancelledWorkForResume` (called by `resolveIncident` before the incident closes): claims every task run its budget stopped since the incident opened. That covers runs budget enforcement fenced, including stops still in flight, and runs the agent lifecycle pause stopped for this budget (`pauseStop`, carried from the lifecycle operation's `pauseCause` so a resume before the Stop keeps the link). Runs a person stopped are excluded. Two indexed passes led by `(company_id, status)`. - `deliverBudgetResumeContinuations`: once a claimed run's stop settles, files the resolving board member's Retry (`requestTaskRetry`, idempotency key `budget-resume:<run>`, with the member's session source and the chat Retry callback). The Retry path checks, under the task lock, that the run is still the task's latest and the task is open, so continued or completed work is never repeated. Claim settlement and its activity entry commit together; retryable refusals and errors retry. - Delivery runs in the always-on budget-enforcement worker after each pass's Stop delivery. Its schedule includes deliverable claims and the earliest stale-claim expiry. The execution-continuation worker is a backstop. - `agent.paused` / `agent.resumed` logging is in #20113. `budget.cancelled_work_resume_requested` (incident) and `budget.cancelled_work_continued` / `_not_continued` (task) are recorded here. ## Verification - New `budget-resume-continuation.test.ts` (Postgres, real `resolveIncident` → claims → `requestTaskRetry` → real `resumeTaskRetry` into a queued run): - each task continues once, including a blocked task; repeat delivery or resolve saves nothing new; - a stop still in flight at resume, whose terminal write replaces the result JSON, is still continued; - a 30-task scope is fully continued; - a lifecycle-pause stop caused by the budget is continued, and one caused by a manual pause is not; - continued work, done tasks, a run that finished before its stop, and person-stopped runs (including ones enforcement also fenced) are not continued. - `lifecycle.test.ts`: the pause records its cause on the operation and on stopped runs, including when the budget is resumed before the pause's Stop. `budget-enforcement-worker.test.ts`: delivery after Stop delivery, and a wake at claim expiry. - 287 tests across the affected suites passed. Server typecheck (`typecheck-layers`, low-memory): no errors. - Not run: the H1 chaos rerun (Phase 3 runs it after merge). ## Risks - Resume now continues budget-stopped tasks automatically. A board that wants a task stopped can Stop it again; person-stopped runs are never continued. - A new table and one index (migration 0451). > 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, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test execution). Extended reasoning enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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
|
b54317d3fb |
fix(native): give a preparing run's first turn the user's queued messages instead of interrupting it (#20168)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A Paperclip Runner (native) run prepares its workspace and
environment before it starts its first provider turn. This can take
about a minute.
> - A user's message that arrives during that time waits as a deferred
wake behind the run. The Interrupt control then cancelled the run before
any provider turn.
> - The cancel threw away the whole preparation. A new run had to
prepare again, so the user waited longer for the first token.
> - This pull request gives the run's first turn the queued messages.
The run seals its first-turn input immediately before `turn.start`, so
the messages are part of the prompt that the turn starts with.
> - The benefit is that the user sees the message handled in the same
run, with no cancel and no second preparation.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A Paperclip Runner run took about 54 s to prepare (environment startup,
workspace, runtime selection). The user sent a second message 32 s into
that time and clicked Interrupt 21 s later. Interrupt cancelled the run
as `operator_interrupted` ("Interrupted to send queued messages") before
any provider turn. A new run then prepared again from the start. The
runtime-selection transaction that froze the run's input completed about
5 s before the click, and the coordinator claim came 4 s after it, so
the message could not be given to the first turn at any point in the old
code.
**Expected behavior**
When a user message arrives for a task whose current run has not started
its first provider turn, the run does not stop. The message goes into
that run's first turn. A run that is in a turn is interrupted as before.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Assign a task to a Paperclip Runner agent with a sandbox environment,
so preparation takes a long time.
2. While the run prepares, post a second comment on the task.
3. Click Interrupt on the queued message before the run starts its
provider turn.
4. See that the run is cancelled and a new run prepares again.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Staging revision
|
||
|
Devin FoleyandClaude Opus 5.5
|
32b3648758 |
fix(storage): back off and reduce parallel parts when S3 asks to slow down (#20165)
A workspace snapshot upload sends up to eight file-backed parts at once. The SDK never retries a part because its body is a stream, so a part that received 503 SlowDown had only the uploader's three fixed-delay attempts (0.5 s and 1 s). Under a request-rate limit the save failed and the run failed in setup. A rate-limited part now retries with exponential full-jitter backoff (up to eight attempts, at most 20 s per wait), and the upload halves the parts it admits, once per round of throttled requests. Other part failures keep the existing three attempts. Tests cover a real-client SlowDown recovery, the single halving, the attempt bound, cancellation during a wait, and the backoff schedule through its ceiling. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
098f7d370b |
fix(workspaces): release an unchanged remote writer without a snapshot and wake its waiters (#20171)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A remote (sandbox) task workspace has one writer run at a time. The
writer holds the workspace until its files are saved as a snapshot
> - A run that a user comment interrupts right after its claim did no
work. No provider turn started and no command ran in the sandbox
> - Paperclip still kept its sandbox, then took a full snapshot of the
unchanged workspace. On a 2 GB repository this took 3 minutes
> - The next runs failed setup with `workspace_busy` ("ended, but its
workspace save has not settled"). The retry then waited for the
one-minute settling re-check after the save. The user's message waited
more than 4 minutes
> - This pull request releases such a writer at once, at the saved
version it started from, when durable evidence proves that it changed
nothing. It also wakes parked `workspace_busy` waiters when a hold
settles
> - The benefit is that an interrupted run no longer delays the next
message by a full workspace save
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A remote-workspace run was claimed (`native.coordinator.claim`). One
second later a board comment interrupted it (`operator_interrupted`). It
made no provider turn and no tool calls. Cancelled-workspace
preservation still retained its sandbox, and workspace recovery took a
full `remote_workspace_snapshot` of the unchanged workspace (3 minutes
for a 2 GB repository). Two follow-up runs were cancelled with
`workspace_busy`. Their retry was due during the save, and it parked for
the one-minute settling re-check after the save finished.
**Expected behavior**
A writer that provably changed nothing releases the workspace at once
and keeps its existing `snapshotId`. The next run is admitted without
`workspace_busy`. When a save does run, waiters start as soon as it
commits.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a task on a remote sandbox workspace that already has a saved
version.
2. Interrupt the run with a board comment right after the claim, before
the provider turn.
3. See the full snapshot operation on the interrupted run and
`workspace_busy` on the follow-up runs.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Staging served revision
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
8e5959c759 |
fix(agents): keep pause board-only and resume grant-gated on the PATCH status route (#20164)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The board governs the agent lifecycle: pause, resume and terminate > - The V1 permission matrix says agents may never pause an agent, and may resume one only with a direct `agents:configure` change grant > - `POST /api/agents/:id/pause` and `POST /api/agents/:id/resume` enforce this, but `PATCH /api/agents/:id` with a `status` ran the same lifecycle change after only the agent-configuration check > - The `agents.pause-agent` chat eval caught it: the CEO agent paused Morgan itself through `PATCH`, although the case (and the spec) expect a board user to do it > - This pull request applies the dedicated routes' checks to `PATCH` status changes, as #19955 did for termination > - The benefit is one lifecycle authority, with no second route around it ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19955 **What happened** An agent that may configure another agent could pause it with `PATCH /api/agents/{id}` `{ "status": "paused" }`, although `POST /api/agents/{id}/pause` is board-only. The same `PATCH` with `{ "status": "idle" }` resumed an agent without the change-grant decision and without the invalid-org-chain guard that `POST /resume` applies. In a chat eval run, the CEO agent paused Morgan this way and reported "Morgan is paused". **Expected behavior** Pause is board-only on every route (`doc/SPEC-implementation.md` section 9.3: "Pause/resume agent ... pause: no; resume: direct `agents:configure` grant only"; "Pause, clear-error, terminate, approval, and key-management routes remain board-only"). An agent gets the standard final "Board access required" denial with a link to the agent's profile. Resume through `PATCH` needs the same grant and org-chain checks as `POST /resume`. **Steps to reproduce** 1. As an agent with agent-configuration permission over another agent, call `POST /api/agents/{id}/pause`. The result is 403. 2. Call `PATCH /api/agents/{id}` with `{ "status": "paused" }`. Before this change the result is 200 and the agent is paused. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/agents.ts` (`PATCH /agents/:id`): `status: "paused"` now calls `assertBoard`, the same check as `POST /pause`. Agents get the structured `board_access_required` denial that says the denial is final and links `/<prefix>/agents/<id>`. - `status: "idle"` now calls `assertCanResumeAgent` (the `agent_config:update` decision with `requiresChangeGrant`) and returns 409 with the repair guidance when the org chain is invalid, the same as `POST /resume`. - `server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts`: pause is denied through both routes for an agent allowed to configure the target, with no lifecycle change, run cancel or activity. A board user can still pause through `PATCH`. `PATCH` idle applies the change-grant decision, allows a granted agent, and keeps the org-chain guard. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts`: 147 passed. - Without the route change, three new tests fail (PATCH pause by an agent, PATCH idle without the change grant, PATCH idle with an invalid org chain). - Policy evidence: `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` section 9.3 and the `agents.pause-agent` scenario ("Pausing an agent requires board control"). ## Risks - Non-board automation that paused agents through `PATCH` status now gets 403. That is the intended governance boundary. Board users are not affected. - Agents that resumed agents through `PATCH` status now need the same change grant as `POST /resume`. Standard agents get `agents:configure` on creation, so ordinary behavior does not change. - `PATCH` idle now returns 409 for an agent with an invalid org chain, the same as `POST /resume`. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), via Claude Code, with tool use (shell, 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 - [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
|
f89813d005 |
fix(api-catalog): describe the real backup and restore paths for agents (#20159)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Instance admins and operators own database backups; a chat agent cannot create one > - When a person asks an agent to back up the instance and check a restore, the agent must say who can do it and how > - The agent reads the API catalog to find the operator path, but the backup entry had only the summary "Trigger a database backup" > - With no real path in the catalog, the agent told the person to use an "Instance settings > Backups" page that does not exist > - This pull request describes the real paths in that catalog entry: the endpoint, the CLI, the retention setting, the result file, and how to check a restore safely > - The benefit is that the agent sends the person to paths that exist and keeps a restore check off the live database ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** A person asked the CEO chat agent: "Back up this test instance and check that we can restore it." The agent got 403 on `POST /api/instance/database-backups`, which is correct. It searched the catalog for backup and restore operations and found only that endpoint with no description. Its reply then said: "Create a backup in Instance settings → Backups". The web UI has no such page or control. **Expected behavior** The agent says that an instance admin or operator must do this. It names real paths: the endpoint for an instance admin, `paperclipai db:backup` on the server host, and the Backup retention setting for automatic backups. For the restore check, it says to restore into a separate empty database, not over the live one. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a local instance and open a chat with the CEO agent. 2. Ask: "Back up this test instance and check that we can restore it." 3. Read the reply: it names a backup page in Instance settings. Look for it in the UI: there is none. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: add a description to `POST /api/instance/database-backups`. It says that only instance admins can call it (agents get 403, cloud-managed instances run backups for you), that automatic backups run about hourly with retention set on the company-prefixed /company/settings page, that the UI has no create or restore control, that an operator can run `paperclipai db:backup`, what the result file is, and that a restore check uses psql into a separate empty database, never over the live one. - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: register the success status as `201`, which is what the route returns, instead of `200`. The published document already showed `201` through the created-operations fixup, so this makes the source match it. - `server/src/__tests__/database-backup-catalog-guidance.test.ts`: new regression test. It runs the agent's catalog searches from the failed run and checks the description. It also checks that the published document shows `201` and not `200` for a successful backup. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/database-backup-catalog-guidance.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` (from `server/`): 40 tests pass. Without the change, the 2 search tests fail. The status test guards the published document, which the fixup already kept correct. - `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/instance-database-backups-routes.test.ts`: 7 tests pass. The server typecheck passes. - Chat eval `instance-operations.backup-and-restore` (runner-opencode), with this commit cherry-picked onto the eval branch: before the change, the reply named an "Instance settings → Backups" page that does not exist. After the change (GitHub Actions run 42552777052), the eval passed. The first reply said the agent got 403, named `POST /api/instance/database-backups` for an instance admin and `paperclipai db:backup --json` for an operator, linked Backup retention on the company settings page, and said to restore with psql into a separate, empty database, never over the live one. The second reply reported the operator's restore receipt and its limits correctly. ## Risks - Low risk. The change adds catalog text and makes the registered success status match the published 201. It does not change any API or permission behavior. - If a backup page or restore command is added later, this text must change. The regression test names these facts, so such a change fails the test and shows the text to update. > 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`), 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
|
3f12046576 |
fix(tool-access): an unscoped tools:use grant does not turn on actions a connection left off (#20160)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - People connect apps and choose which actions of each app agents may
call; the choice is saved as the connection's tool profile
> - Every new standard agent also gets an unscoped `tools:use` grant,
which means "this agent may use tools"
> - The access policy checked explicit grants before profiles, so this
default grant allowed every action of every installed connection,
including actions the person left off
> - The agent's effective profile showed the action off, but the gateway
and the test-as-agent summary allowed it
> - This pull request makes an unscoped grant stop at a connection
profile: when a profile governs the tool's connection, only a grant
scoped to the action, connection or application allows an action the
profile leaves off
> - The benefit is that the actions a person turns off for a connection
stay off for new agents
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
A person connected an app with one read action and one destructive write
action. When they finished the connection, they enabled only the read
action. They installed the connection for a new agent, Morgan. Morgan's
effective profile (`GET
/api/companies/{companyId}/tools/profiles/effective/agents/{agentId}`)
allowed only the read action. But `GET
/api/tool-connections/{connectionId}/test-agents/{agentId}/access`
reported both actions as `allowed` with reason `allow_explicit_grant`,
and a chat agent told the person that Morgan could also run the
destructive write. The same policy decision admits gateway calls, so
Morgan could call the write.
**Expected behavior**
An action that the connection's profile leaves off is off for the agent.
The access summary, the effective profile and the gateway agree. A grant
that a person scopes to that action, connection or application still
allows it.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Connect an MCP app that has a read tool and a destructive tool. In
the finish step, enable only the read tool.
2. Create a new agent through the API (it gets the default unscoped
`tools:use` grant) and install the connection for it.
3. Call `GET
/api/tool-connections/{connectionId}/test-agents/{agentId}/access`: the
destructive tool shows `allowed`, reason `allow_explicit_grant`.
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/tool-access-policy.ts`: for an agent, a tool's
connection is governed by a connection profile when the agent's
effective profiles include the connection's own access profile (the app
wizard's `app:<connectionId>` profile or the agent's connection-intent
profile, even with no entries), or any entry that names this connection
or selects this action (including application, tool-name and risk-level
selectors). For a governed connection, `explicitGrant` counts only
grants whose scope names an action, connection or application (`allow`,
`toolName`, `catalogEntryId`, `connectionId`, `applicationId`,
`applicationKey`). A grant scoped only by context (for example an agent
or project) still covers every tool, so it does not override the
profile. Board users keep their operator grant.
- `server/src/services/tool-profile-binding-precedence.ts`: export the
existing connection-profile identity check as
`isConnectionAccessProfile`, so the policy and binding precedence use
one definition.
- `server/src/__tests__/generic-mcp-connection.test.ts`: regression
tests through the gateway's access summary and the direct policy check:
- only the read action enabled: the write stays off with the unscoped
grant, and a grant scoped to the write allows it
- every action turned off (both lists empty): both stay off; a
context-only scope stays off; a connection-scoped or application-scoped
grant allows them
- an agent the connection's profile does not cover keeps the unscoped
grant
- a general profile with an application-selector exclude (no connection
id) is not overridden by the unscoped grant
- with company-wide access, the direct policy check denies the off
action for an agent and still allows it for a board user with the
unscoped grant
## Verification
- New tests: all pass with the change. On `master`, 4 of 5 fail. On the
first revision of this PR, the all-off, application-exclude and
board-user tests fail.
- Regression suites, all pass: `generic-mcp-connection`,
`tool-access-policy-service`, `tool-profile-matching`,
`tool-profile-entry-order`, `connection-management.integration` (238
tests), and `tool-access-service`, `tool-gateway-service`,
`tool-gateway`, `tool-profile-review-service` (799 tests).
- Every enforcement path uses the one `decide` function in
`tool-access-policy.ts`, and `explicitGrant` is called only there. That
covers the gateway tool listing and calls, the access summary, delegated
and Test tab calls, the connection-intent access check, the GitHub
review bot tool, and the example smoke check.
- Chat eval `app-permissions.test-as-agent` (runner-opencode). Before
the change (GitHub Actions run 42550085273), the access summary for
Morgan reported the write as `allowed` by `allow_explicit_grant`. With
the first commit cherry-picked onto the eval branch, GitHub Actions run
42552819589 passed. The summary reported `launch_read` allowed
(`allow_profile`) and `launch_update` off (`deny_default`), which
matches Morgan's effective profile, and the agent's reply said the same.
## Risks
- Medium risk. This changes an access decision. An agent that used a
connection action only through its default unscoped grant, while the
connection's profile or an explicit exclude left that action off, loses
that action. That is the intended fix. An operator who relied on it must
enable the action in the connection or give the agent a grant that names
the action, connection or application.
- A grant scoped only by context (for example `{ projectId }`) no longer
overrides a connection profile. Risk-level and provider-type scopes are
not treated as naming an action.
- Tools that no connection profile governs (for example Paperclip's own
tools), agents without a connection profile, and board users keep the
current behavior.
> 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`), 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: #17884 (scoped `tools:use` grants at hire time).
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|