Commit Graph
2 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
DottaandPaperclip a3e1d915a7 fix(evals): preserve unknown Codex provider cost (#17158)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work.
> - Direct Runner evals report usage and costs for each attempt.
> - Codex App Server supplies token counts without a provider USD
receipt.
> - The legacy Runner ledger fills an absent cost with zero.
> - The eval result exposed that ledger value as provider-reported cost.
> - This fix keeps provider cost unknown and preserves the estimate and
budget stop.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #17009 and #17154. This is a separate direct Runner accounting fix
based on master.

## What Changed

- Codex direct eval usage now reports null provider USD cost with
unavailable provenance. Token counts and the pinned price estimate
remain available.
- Preserve the original ledger amount as optional
`legacyLedgerCostNanodollars`. Keep the original snapshot receipts
unchanged.
- Apply the existing budget ceiling to the retained ledger amount as
well as the token estimate. Correcting a label does not relax admission
or settlement checks.
- Use the unique operator UUID for Muse test company prefixes,
eliminating collisions from the previous 24-bit random suffix.
- Document the cost distinction in the Runner/Evals integration
contract. Other provider behavior and historical artifacts remain
unchanged.

## Verification

- Reproduced both zero and nonzero legacy amounts being labelled as
provider USD cost before the fix.
- The current eval-session contract and entrypoint tests pass (39
tests). The new regression uses the bounded usage consumer and actual
campaign cost projection. It checks unknown provider cost, the separate
estimate, unchanged raw evidence and the legacy ledger budget stop.
- All 15 Runner report, campaign and metrics Node tests pass. Four
adjacent CLI entrypoint/runtime tests also pass.
- Runner TypeScript validation passes with its standard dependency-build
prerequisite; `git diff --check` passes. Both Runner TypeScript
configurations also passed during the original accounting verification.
- Hosted CI run
[39960367674](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39960367674)
passes on `7d84f138044bac58cdced6baa2d0ec3d63767bb8`, including
typecheck, build, server tests and browser checks. Greptile and
Paperclip Review both report 5/5 on that commit with no actionable
findings.
- The previous CI failure was a PostgreSQL unique-index collision on
`companies_issue_prefix_idx` during Muse fixture setup. Local Muse
verification could not reach test execution because embedded PostgreSQL
timed out during macOS startup (initially reporting a missing zstd
library). The corrected fixture passed in hosted Linux CI.
- Verification used no model calls. Full repository checks were
performed by hosted CI; local verification was scoped to the changed
contracts and fixture.

## Risks

Consumers that assumed Codex always had a numeric provider cost must
handle null. The contract already permits null for other profiles, and
the report consumer retains missing-cost coverage. The legacy amount
remains available as unverified evidence and still triggers the existing
budget stop. Neither the estimate nor that ledger amount proves an
invoice charge. This change does not rewrite old artifacts or qualify
other provider routes.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository tools and code execution.
The exact deployment variant and context-window size are not exposed by
this session.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-23 06:36:34 -07:00
Dotta 5458940a6e feat(runner): add offline evaluation tooling (#12653)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip Runner needs repeatable evaluation contracts.
> - Evaluation code must stay separate from provider launch and
production orchestration.
> - Offline fixtures need stable compatibility, scoring, traceability,
and report rules.
> - Published Runner consumers need only the supported evaluation
contract surface.
> - This pull request adds offline evaluation tooling and a
workspace-private matrix kernel.
> - The benefit is deterministic evaluation without credentials or paid
provider calls.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #11297

This pull request extracts the offline evaluation unit from the earlier
aggregate Runner work.

## What Changed

- Add a workspace-private, provider-neutral evaluation matrix kernel.
- Add the public `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner/evals` compatibility and
native execution contracts.
- Add fail-closed runnerd artifact and protocol compatibility checks.
- Add deterministic workflow catalogs, scoring, traceability, and report
generation.
- Add sanitized Codex, OpenCode, and ACPX fixtures.
- Add package-boundary and clean-consumer checks.
- Add the eval package manifest to the Docker dependency stage.
- Add the generated protocol fixture digest without changing the
lockfile.

## Verification

GitHub Actions must run:

- Runner TypeScript and Rust type checks.
- Runner unit and protocol tests.
- Evaluation kernel tests.
- Workflow traceability checks.
- Clean-consumer and package-boundary checks.
- Repository test, type-check, build, policy, and security gates.

No local test command was run. The repository owner requested
GitHub-only verification.

## Risks

This is a large greenfield review surface with 51 files. The code does
not launch a live provider or load credentials. Package and protocol
drift fail closed. The workspace lockfile remains under the existing
CI-owned process.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex with the GPT-5 agent model. The work used high reasoning,
repository inspection, tool use, and parallel code review.

## 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
- [ ] 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
2026-09-01 05:19:47 -05:00