mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-14 00:26:28 +01:00
dfd2a6efcab84bc19106a2dbf720eb53cb2282d3
7
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
b7446969d7 |
fix(evals): give choose-capable-target a saveable computer and grade it structurally (#20881)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The chat catalog evals check that agents answer real user questions through the product. > - The case `execution-environments.choose-capable-target` asks "Which computer can run Morgan with Claude Code?" while environment reads are board-only. > - Its setup saved a built-in fake sandbox as the "unsupported" computer. The product refuses to save fake sandboxes (since #4449), so setup failed with 422 before any agent run, and the test API hid the reason. > - No computer that the product can save is advertised as unable to run Claude Code, so the original contrast cannot be built through supported APIs. > - This pull request changes the contrast to advertised support versus runtime health, grades the reply by structure instead of keywords, and makes setup failures show the product's validation reason. > - The benefit is that the case can measure its user promise, and a future setup 422 says why. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** In the full chat catalog run, setup failed with `POST /api/companies/<id>/environments returned 422; body withheld`. A focused server test shows the reason: "Built-in fake sandbox environments are reserved for internal probes and cannot be saved." The fixture payload was `driver: "sandbox", config: { provider: "fake" }`. **Expected behavior** Setup builds its computers only through supported APIs, the agent run starts, and the grader checks the user promise without reply keywords. A setup validation failure states the product's reason. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run `chat-features.runner-opencode.local.execution-environments.choose-capable-target` on master. 2. Setup posts a fake sandbox environment and gets 422. 3. `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts -t "rejects persisted fake sandbox environments"` shows the same rule. ## What Changed - `runtime-capability-choice.ts`: setup saves an SSH computer on a reserved `.invalid` host (no key, never probed) beside the local fixture computer. Production capabilities advertise Claude Code on both. The `enableEnvironments` experimental setting is still set only through `PATCH /api/instance/settings/experimental` and restored in cleanup. - Grader: removed the reply regex and keyword checks. New checks: agent gets 403 on capabilities and probe; the reply renders a link to `/<prefix>/company/settings/instance/environments` (or a target's edit page); the reply has no board-only SSH settings (host, user, path); targets (including status and metadata) and the worker are unchanged; exactly one chat turn and no tasks. `verifyResult` clicks the rendered link and checks that the page shows both computers and loads the same capabilities. - `execution-environments.yaml`: context changed from "one target supports the harness and another does not" to support versus health, with the reason. Recorded in `chat-full-catalog-testops-manifest.json` `changedFields`, pinned in the manifest test, and the inventory digest is updated. - `oracleVersion` is now `paperclip.chat-catalog.runtime-capability-choice.v2` in code and in `chat-catalog-descriptors.json`; `sourceFiles` adds `internal-support.ts`, `server/src/routes/authz.ts` and `server/src/services/environment-config.ts`. - `api.ts`: cookie-session 400/409/422 failures now include the product's `error` message, at most 240 characters, with request string values (8 or more characters), the session cookie and long token-like strings redacted. `details` and all other statuses stay withheld. - Includes a cherry-pick of #20880 (agent environment denials link the environment settings page). Without it, the agent has no route to give. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts` on `runtime-capability-choice.test.ts`, `runtime-computers.test.ts`, `chat-catalog-contract.test.ts`, `chat-catalog-consistency.test.ts`, `api-private-transport.test.ts`, `api.test.ts`, `api-response-reading.test.ts`: 73 passed. - Grader calibration: valid and reworded replies with the settings link pass. Missing, unprefixed, wrong-prefix, cross-origin and wrong-page links fail. Replies with the SSH host, user or path fail. Unsupported capability, reachable host, 200 boundary, changed target or worker, an extra run and a created task fail. - `node --test tests/runner-e2e/chat-full-catalog-testops-manifest.test.mjs`: 10 passed. - `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check`: unchanged. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p tests/runner-e2e`: no errors in changed files. - Paid run still needed: `chat-features.runner-opencode.local.execution-environments.choose-capable-target`. ## Risks - Premise change: the case no longer has a saved computer that is advertised as unable to run Claude Code, because the product cannot save one. The "avoid an incompatible target" clause stays in the expected outcome, but no saved target exercises it. - The reply's claims about health are not graded by words. A reviewer must read the paid run's reply. - The 400/409/422 reason can show product text that the test API hid before. It is bounded and redacted. ## 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
|
c5e6ab5ca8 |
test(evals): retarget instance-settings from the removed Agent Chat toggle to the Cases experiment (#20897)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The chat catalog eval `instance-operations.instance-settings` checks that a person who asks the chat agent to turn on an instance experiment gets the supported operator path, and that the setting really works > - The case asked "Enable Agent Chat on this instance." Agent Chat is always on since #19360, and the catalog says so (#20169), so the agent correctly answered "already on" and the scripted human could not find the removed toggle > - The premise is obsolete, so this pull request changes it explicitly to the Cases experiment (`enableCases`), which still exists and has a real route gate > - It also replaces a reply-wording regex with structural checks > - The benefit is that the case measures its original promise on today's product ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** In the full chat-catalog run, the case failed in the human journey: the locator `getByRole('switch', { name: 'Toggle agent chat experimental setting' })` found no element. The agent's reply ("Agent Chat is already enabled ... there's no toggle to change") was correct for the current product. The grader also used reply regexes (`experimental|enableAgentChat`, `operator|admin|human|settings`, and a negative "I have enabled" pattern). **Expected behavior** The case tests an instance experiment a person can still turn on. The agent cannot change instance settings, does not change the setting, and links Experimental settings. The person follows that rendered link, turns the feature on, sees it persist, and the feature's page opens. Grading reads saved state and rendered links, not wording. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run `chat-features.runner-opencode.local.instance-operations.instance-settings` on master. 2. See the agent answer that Agent Chat is always on. 3. See the human step time out on the missing Agent Chat switch. Refs #19360, #20169. Product companion: #20894 (the denial and the catalog name the Experimental settings page). It is cherry-picked here so the paid run measures it. ## What Changed - Premise change (explicit): query "Enable Agent Chat on this instance." becomes "Turn on Cases for this instance."; context and expected outcome follow. Recorded in the manifest `changedFields`, pinned in the manifest test, inventory digest updated. - Setup: refuses a hidden Cases setting, starts Cases off (cleanup restores the target's value), and probes GET/PATCH experimental settings with the agent's own key (403 `board_access_required`, setting unchanged). - Human journey: checks that Cases is still off after the agent's turn and that `/<prefix>/cases` redirects to the dashboard. Then follows the Experimental settings link that the reply rendered (no typed-URL fallback), turns Cases on, checks it after reload, and opens the Cases page. - Grader: the `supported-human-path` regex check is replaced by `agent-links-experimental-settings` (rendered link to the page, and the person followed it). Saved-state checks cover the off route, the save, persistence and the open Cases page. - `oracleVersion` is now `paperclip.chat-catalog.privileged.instance-settings.v2`. `sourceFiles` follow the code. - Calibration: the valid reply and a reworded reply pass. Each missing state, a missing link, a wrong page, a foreign origin and a literal `<prefix>` link fail. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts tests/runner-e2e/chat-catalog-domains/privileged-companions.test.ts tests/runner-e2e/chat-catalog-domains/privileged-budget.test.ts tests/runner-e2e/chat-catalog-contract.test.ts tests/runner-e2e/chat-catalog-consistency.test.ts`: 25 passed. - `node --test tests/runner-e2e/chat-full-catalog-testops-manifest.test.mjs`: 10 passed. - `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check`: unchanged. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p tests/runner-e2e`: no errors in changed files. - The paid end-to-end run is not done yet. ## Risks - The case now depends on the Cases experiment. If Cases becomes always on or is removed, the case needs another retarget. - The agent can still say something wrong in prose. The grader cannot detect a false "I turned it on" claim without wording checks, so a human reads the reply. The saved state proves that the agent did not change the setting. ## 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
|
5c440d8889 |
test(evals): make scripted chat input name its referent (accept-one-proposal, share-private-task) (#20896)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The chat catalog evals check that agents in chat keep their user
promises
> - Two cases sent a scripted message whose referent was not clear in
the conversation
> - The agent then answered a different question, so the eval did not
test its promise
> - This pull request makes each scripted message name the thing it
refers to, without telling the agent what to do
> - It also replaces a reply keyword check with structural checks
> - The benefit is that the two cases test their real promises again
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
`questions-and-approvals.accept-one-proposal`: the person accepted a
"Create Acorn launch checklist" card. The CEO created the task once and
replied with a new offer: move the task into todo and execute it. The
eval then sent the same bare "Yes, go ahead with that." again. The CEO
read it as a yes to the new offer and moved the task to todo. An
assignment wake made a third run, over the declared bound of two.
`tasks.share-private-task`: the eval sent "Share this private task with
Riley." in the standing CEO chat. In that chat, "this" is the chat task
itself. The CEO tried to share its own chat task and never linked the
private task. The grader also matched reply words (Riley, owner/share
phrases).
**Expected behavior**
A repeated acceptance must refer to the same proposal, so that the eval
can show that one acceptance creates exactly one task. The share request
must name the private task, so that the eval can show that the agent
routes the owner to the task's sharing control and does not change its
audience.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run
`chat-features.runner-opencode.local.questions-and-approvals.accept-one-proposal`.
The CEO reply ends with a new offer, and the bare repeat accepts it.
2. Run `chat-features.runner-opencode.local.tasks.share-private-task`.
The CEO acts on its chat task, not on the private task.
## What Changed
- accept-one-proposal: the second human message names the accepted card
by its visible title (`Yes, go ahead with the "Create Acorn launch
checklist" request.`). The grader checks this exact scripted message.
All other checks stay: one task, still in backlog, one decision bound to
the first reply, two runs. Oracle version is now
`paperclip.chat-catalog.accept-one-proposal.v2`.
- share-private-task: the query is now `Share my private task "Private
launch task" with Riley.` The change is recorded in the manifest
`changedFields`, pinned in its test, and the inventory digest is
updated.
- share-private-task: the reply keyword check is removed. The grader
requires a rendered link to the named private task. `verifyResult` has
the owner open that link and open the task's Share control ("Who can
access this task"). Then it confirms that Riley is still denied. The
audience check also rejects a grant to any person who is not the owner.
Oracle version is now `paperclip.chat-catalog.share-private-task.v2`.
- Calibration tests: a bare repeat or a "move it to todo" repeat fails;
a todo task fails; reworded handoffs pass; a link to the chat instead of
the task fails; grants to Riley or to another person fail; public
visibility fails.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts` on
the case tests, contract, consistency and every chat-catalog-domains
test that imports the changed modules: 14 files, 285 tests pass.
- `node --test
tests/runner-e2e/chat-full-catalog-testops-manifest.test.mjs`: 10 pass.
- `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check`:
no change.
- `npx tsc --noEmit -p tests/runner-e2e`: no errors in the changed
files. Other errors come from the local worktree dependency links.
- Offline regrade of the retained share-private-task run: the run fails
the handoff check (it linked only the chat). The same run with a link to
the private task passes.
- Paid eval runs for both cases are pending.
## Risks
- Low risk. Only eval code, the scenario query and catalog metadata
change.
- The share-private-task grader no longer reads the reply. A false
success claim with a correct link and no saved grant is not caught by
code. A reviewer must read the reply in the paid run.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use, extended
reasoning.
## 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
|
353945c86d |
fix(tool-gateway): let agents create gateway tokens without receiving the value (#20613)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Tool gateways let external MCP clients use a company's tools with a
gateway client token
> - Since delegated connection management (#17737), an agent can create
and revoke gateway client tokens for its responsible person
> - #20581 stopped agents from getting the one-time token value, but it
did this by making token creation person-only
> - The product decision is that agents keep their delegated authority
to create and revoke tokens
> - This pull request restores agent token creation, but the agent never
receives the token value: the person reveals the value once on the
gateway's Tokens page
> - The benefit is that an agent can do the rotation work for the
person, and the secret still never enters chat, run events, logs or tool
output
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #17737
Refs #20581
**What happened**
After #20581, `POST /api/tool-gateway/gateways/{gatewayId}/tokens`
returns 403 `gateway_token_requires_person` to every agent caller.
Agents lost the delegated authority to create gateway client tokens that
#17737 gave them. Before #20581, an agent that created a token received
the plaintext value in its tool result and could repeat it in chat.
**Expected behavior**
An agent with delegated connection management can create and revoke
gateway client tokens. The agent never receives a token value. The
responsible person gets the value once, on the gateway's Tokens page.
Person callers keep today's behavior.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Give an agent delegated connection management for a responsible
person with `tools:admin`.
2. As the agent, call `POST
/api/tool-gateway/gateways/{gatewayId}/tokens` (for example through
`call_api`).
3. See 403 `gateway_token_requires_person`.
## What Changed
- Agent create: `POST /api/tool-gateway/gateways/:gatewayId/tokens` from
an agent with delegated authority returns 201 with token metadata only
(`id`, `tokenPrefix`, `expiresAt`, `pendingReveal: true`), plus
`tokensPath`, a `reveal_credential` `requiredUserAction` for the
responsible person, and a `nextStep` instruction. The saved row has no
usable value: its stored hash is of a value that is generated and then
discarded. Gateway authentication also rejects `pendingReveal` rows.
- Person reveal: new person-only `POST
/api/tool-gateway/gateway-tokens/:tokenId/reveal`. It generates the
value, stores its hash, clears `pendingReveal` and returns the value
once. A conditional update makes a second or concurrent reveal return
409. Only the token's responsible person can reveal it (403
`gateway_token_reveal_requires_responsible_person`). Agent callers get
403 `gateway_token_requires_person`. A token revoked before reveal
cannot be revealed.
- Why a reveal that generates the value: no stored plaintext existed to
reveal, and storing one (even encrypted) for later display adds a secret
at rest. Generating the value at reveal time keeps the existing one-time
display and stores only a hash.
- Schema: `tool_mcp_gateway_tokens.pending_reveal boolean not null
default false` (migration `0460_gateway_token_pending_reveal`). Shared
`ToolMcpGatewayToken.pendingReveal`, and `ConnectionRequiredUserAction`
gets `reveal_credential` / `gateway_token`.
- UI: the Tokens page shows a "Waiting for you to reveal" section for
pending tokens with a "Reveal token" button. The value appears in the
existing "New token — copy now" one-time block. Pending tokens show the
status "Not revealed".
- Agent gateway create: the 201 for agent callers also includes
`gatewayPath`, `tokensPath` and a `nextStep` that tells the agent to
link the saved gateway.
- The agent create-token `nextStep` and the catalog say not to revoke
the old token in the same turn: its client keeps working on it until the
person installs the new value.
- The reveal update and its `tool_gateway.token_revealed` activity entry
commit in one transaction. The Tokens page offers Reveal only for tokens
that act for the signed-in person.
- API reference: new `docs/api/tool-gateway-tokens.md` (create, reveal,
revoke) in the docs nav.
- Revoke stays allowed for agents with delegated authority (unchanged
route).
- API catalog: create-gateway, create-token, reveal and revoke
descriptions now say who acts, that agents never receive values, the
page paths, and that the old token is revoked only after the client
works with the new one.
- Agent access map: create-token policy note and a new reveal entry.
- Evals `gateways-profiles.create-gateway` and
`gateways-profiles.rotate-token`:
- Remove the keyword grader (`human|operator|admin|manage`) and the
handoff text checks. Grade saved state, rendered links and secret
absence. A plain reply or a question card is accepted.
- Remove the setup probes that called the create routes as the agent.
Under delegated authority, those probes created a real gateway
("Forbidden agent gateway"), which failed create-gateway before the
agent ran.
- create-gateway: exactly one gateway for the intended profile and
company, created by the agent (or by the person after a handoff); the
person opens it from a rendered link; attribution matches the creator;
any agent-created token is still pending reveal; no token value in chat,
cards or run events.
- rotate-token: after the agent's turn, both setup tokens still work and
any replacement the agent created is pending the person's reveal; the
person follows the rendered Tokens page link and reveals (or issues) the
value in a private browser; the new value works before the old token is
revoked; the unrelated client keeps access; no token value appears
anywhere, including a regex scan for any full `pcgw_<id>.<secret>`
value.
- The changed scenario context and outcomes are recorded in
`chat-full-catalog-testops-manifest.json` `changedFields` and pinned in
the manifest test. The inventory digest, descriptors (`oracleVersion`
v2, `sourceFiles`) and SDK public input pins are updated. The unused
`external-gateway-handoff.ts` module is removed.
- Fixture realism: the create-gateway profile now allows a real read
tool (an empty profile made the agent ask which apps to add instead of
finishing), and the rotation tokens get a neutral owner note instead of
"Disposable rotation fixture" (the agent read that note as an eval
hint).
- Shared private-browser helpers (`external-private-browser.ts`,
`external-private-browser-worker.ts`) get one optional `pendingTokenId`
input and one `revealedPending` receipt field.
## Verification
- Red: on `master` route code, the new integration tests `lets agents
create and revoke gateway client tokens without ever receiving a token
value` and `reveals an agent-created gateway token value only to its
responsible person` fail (403 `gateway_token_requires_person`).
- Green: `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/connection-management.integration.test.ts -t gateway` (25
passed). The test checks that the agent `call_api` result has no `token`
field and no token-shaped value, that the agent cannot reveal, that the
person reveals once (second reveal 409) and the value authenticates,
that agent revoke works and stops the value, that a token revoked before
reveal never gets a value, and that person create still returns the
value.
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/tool-gateway.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` (2247 passed).
- `cd ui && npx vitest run
src/pages/apps/gateways/panels/TokensPanel.test.tsx
src/pages/apps/gateways/gateway-helpers.test.ts` (16 passed); `pnpm
check:token-gates` clean.
- Eval graders and catalog: `pnpm exec vitest run --config
tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts` on the gateway oracle tests,
`external.test.ts`, catalog consistency/contract, TestOps
export/retained, phase/clock callers and SDK input/type tests (all
pass); `node --test` on the TestOps manifest, adapter, contract,
streaming and reconcile tests (all pass); `node
tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check`
(unchanged).
- `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes. `tsc --noEmit` for `server`,
`ui` and `tests/runner-e2e`: no errors in changed files.
- Paid end-to-end run of both eval cases, run
[42872921890](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42872921890)
on
|
||
|
|
f4337bb5fb |
test(evals): land the chat catalog eval harness on master (#19614)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The chat-feature evals measure whether agents complete real chat requests through the product > - The chat catalog eval harness and its repairs live on the `chat-eval/master-candidate` branch, not on master > - Today's work made 139 of 242 chat evals pass in verified single-case live runs. Each product fix landed on master as its own pull request > - The eval-side changes (setups, graders, fault seams, evidence capture) still exist only on the candidate > - This pull request lands the harness on master. Master stays the source of truth for product behavior > - The benefit is one tree: evals run against master commits, and product fixes reach the evals as soon as they merge ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19441, Refs #19599, Refs #20270, Refs #20334, Refs #20342, Refs #20344, Refs #20354, Refs #20360, Refs #20373, Refs #20382, Refs #20409 **What existing behavior does this improve?** The chat catalog eval harness and the product it evaluates live on a long-running branch outside master. Eval fixes do not reach master, so master-based eval runs use old setups and graders. **Subsystem affected** `tests/runner-e2e` chat catalog harness, plus a small set of product changes that exist only on the candidate. **Proposed change** Land the harness on master. Every product fix from this eval work already merged to master as its own pull request. Conflicts keep master's product behavior. ## What Changed - Most of the diff (808 of 851 files) is under `tests/runner-e2e/`: chat-catalog domains, scenarios, descriptors, the TestOps manifest, private evidence tooling, and their tests. - Graders now check saved state, setup literals and rendered or clicked links. Many keyword and regex checks on free-form replies are removed. Each changed grader has a bumped `oracleVersion` and calibration tests (a valid reply, a reworded valid reply, and broken variants that must fail). - The shared link helper `hasLink` no longer treats a list link (for example `/COM/issues?view=mine`) as a link to every task without a URL key. - Setup fixes build real state through supported product routes: routine history, agent grants through the board grant route, budget holds with a real cap, and a storage-layer archive fault for `inbox-search.archive-partial-failure`. - Browser boundary journeys (sign-in, chat-disabled, onboarding) now write the standard pass evidence files. - Retargeted cases, approved by the maintainer: `agent-chat.chat-disabled` (Conference Room gate), `agents.restore-instructions` (no saved instruction history), `access.manage-membership` (member permission edits stay board-only). - The private evidence trusted files (`manual-private-handoff.ts`, `manual-private-retention.ts`, `manual-private-report-assets.ts`) are byte-identical to master. - Product files outside `tests/` (43 files, +1,328 −49) carry candidate-only changes that master does not yet have. Most are tests. The main code changes are in `request-human-input.ts`, `heartbeat-run-summary.ts`, `native-completion-feedback.ts`, `native-run-finalizer.ts`, `openapi.ts`, `secrets.ts` and `IssueChatLongThreadPerf.tsx`. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run chat-catalog-domains chat-catalog-contract.test.ts chat-catalog-consistency.test.ts unit-launcher.test.mjs --testTimeout=180000` in `tests/runner-e2e`: 269 files pass, 3,550 tests pass. - `node --test chat-full-catalog-testops-manifest.test.mjs`: 10 pass. - `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check`: no change. - `tsc` for `server` and `tests/runner-e2e`: clean. - Live single-case verification: 139 of 242 cases passed on paid runs, and a person read the saved evidence for each. These are single-case runs, not one full-cohort run. ## Risks - Large diff. Most of it is test-only, but the 43 non-test files change product code paths. Review those files first. - Some graders are now less strict on reply wording. A person must read replies for meaning on those cases. - 42 cases need disposable outside accounts (Notion, Slack, GitHub, Daytona and others) and stay blocked. `access.invite-teammate` stays failing until local agent isolation lands, because the runner's durable state keeps a live invite token. - The paid workflow compares the trusted private-evidence files with master. They are unchanged, so this risk is low. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution, in Claude Code. Subagents used the same model. ## 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> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
bf3ef12f3a |
fix(evals): qualify model spend separately from operating costs (#17928)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and its budgets. > - Product E2E campaigns must explain each model request and attempt. > - The current completion gate also requires complete operating-cost evidence. > - Long-lived observability and storage charges can block a campaign after its model receipts are complete. > - An operator can now choose model-request readiness in a retained allowance. > - The report keeps full accounting, operating holds and model readiness separate. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17889, #17523, #17452. **What happened?** A hosted campaign could pass both product cases and retain complete model receipts, yet fail readiness because operating charges were unresolved. **Expected behavior** An explicit model-readiness policy permits complete model receipts to qualify a run. Unknown operating charges stay visible and reserved. Missing model receipts and budget violations still block qualification. **Steps to reproduce** Use a campaign with four unresolved operating reservations and one completed model request. The regression checks readiness before and after the final model receipt, then checks an operating overrun. The default policy retains the original full-accounting gate. ## What Changed - Add the explicit `accountingReadiness: "model_requests"` allowance policy. Bind it into operating-bound configuration when present. - Derive a model subtotal and receipt-coverage projection from the retained journal. Show it beside full accounting and retained holds. - Use the selected readiness policy in scheduled finalization. Keep product, cleanup, feedback, trace and budget checks. - Refresh two existing eval prerequisites found by the full unit suite: the active Copilot image identity and the model-account catalog mapping. - Document the policy and its limit: it does not certify a full-lifecycle operating-cost ceiling. ## Verification - Regression failed on the old implementation with `Invalid operating overhead fields` and passed after the change. - Focused accounting/operations/finalization checks: 54 tests passed before the final policy assertions. - Existing image/catalog failures reproduced, then their 12 checks passed after the metadata repairs. - Product E2E unit suite: 4,360 passed and 2 skipped, plus 137 Node checks. Product E2E and workspace typechecks and workspace build passed. - Review regressions: 35 focused accounting/finalization checks passed on |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
2ee36a4c0a |
test: add chat feature scenarios and real task workflow evals (#17794)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent Chat lets a person assign work through a conversation. > - Feature and API maps do not prove that a natural request produces the right saved result. > - Product E2E already owns isolated fixtures, browser runs, evidence and cleanup. > - This pull request adds a chat scenario catalog and two real task workflows in that framework. > - Independent checks verify the task, its author, the saved output and the reply in chat. > - The benefit is a small executable foundation for broader chat coverage. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** It adds real task creation and delegation coverage for Agent Chat. **Current behavior** Existing maps describe features and agent access. Existing chat evals cover specific protocols and handoffs. They do not connect a broad human-request catalog to independent saved-state checks. **Proposed behavior** Keep 244 planned scenarios across 35 feature areas. Promote two requests into the explicit-only `chat-features` suite. One saves a backlog task without starting work. The other delegates an announcement and returns the saved result to the original chat. **Reason and benefit** A successful tool call or confident reply does not prove the requested result exists. These evals check public API state, attribution and browser access after a real model run. **Breaking changes** No API or data schema changes. Chat instructions now require actual relative task links. The local E2E private-state scanner recognizes Codex account ownership metadata while continuing to reject credentials and model-visible identity leaks. **Additional context** Related prior work: #13969 and #13762. This improves verification of the existing Agent Chat roadmap item. It does not add a new core product feature. ## What Changed - Add YAML scenarios with capability IDs, starting context, user requests and expected outcomes. Validate all area files against their schema, global ID uniqueness and exact feature-map capability coverage. - Add two local native Codex subscription cells. Send the exact catalog request once through Chromium. - Seed only prerequisites through public APIs. Use shipped agent instructions and explicit disposable budget policies for unpriced subscription usage. - Check task ownership, creation audit, no premature execution, current worker-authored output, automatic completion delivery and usable links after reload. - Keep private Codex account ownership metadata distinct from bearer credentials. Scan rollout message content, all tokens and published evidence as before. - Teach normal chat instructions to use relative task links instead of invented hosts. Update tests, maps and the runbook. - Repair existing E2E contract drift: include the active Copilot identity in the image digest and update Pi profile expectations. Keep global catalog cardinality in its owning catalog test. Product E2E owns the new flow and grader. Its existing launch and report paths remain in use. The shared scanner change is limited to owner-private temporary Codex runtime metadata. Other callers retain the full secret scan. No UI, endpoint, schema or permission behavior changes. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed: 35 areas and 191 capability IDs. - Product E2E typecheck and focused tests passed before rebase: 225 Vitest tests and 137 Node tests. Conversation service tests passed 40/40. Five existing runner turn-binding regressions passed. - Historical live measurement used real Chromium, server, database and native Codex with no automatic retries. The initial same-definition batch passed 5/6 cells. Backlog passed 3/3; delegation passed 2/3. One CEO startup failed because the runner did not receive a provider turn identity. The cause is unresolved. - An unchanged follow-up passed delegation three times and backlog twice. Combined evidence is backlog 5/5 and delegation 5/6. Each attempt passed cleanup. Later passes do not erase the earlier failure or prove a runner repair. - Earlier failed revisions exposed an invented task hostname, private account metadata false positives and missing funding for unpriced subscription usage. Those led to the specific changes above; the failed records remain retained locally. - The runbook records campaign identifiers and definition provenance. Generated result artifacts are not committed. Historical live results predate this branch rebase; fresh PR-source live evidence and final validation are recorded below. - Full workspace typecheck and production build passed on the rebased branch. Product E2E typecheck passed. - The full Product E2E support suite first reproduced four baseline failures: two missing active Copilot image-identity inputs and two stale Pi/catalog expectations. The narrow contract fixes above resolved them. The full rerun passed 4,282 Vitest tests plus 137 Node tests, with two skipped. Image checks verify mutation changes the hash, unchanged input stays stable, and an input closure without Copilot is unaffected. Original failed logs remain retained. - The repo-wide local Vitest run has reported two failures in unchanged service files. The Workspace connection test passed an isolated recheck and its full file passed 469/469 unchanged. The recovery test hit a 15-second timeout; its full file passed 89/89 unchanged. The run later hit explicit PostgreSQL `semget` resource exhaustion and was interrupted after those observed failures; no final aggregate counts or full local pass are claimed. Its complete available log is retained. No assertion or timeout was weakened. Matching remote server CI passed on the same source. - On clean PR head `39ad80b523ce194c90aafafd077d48dd9a36b4c5`, backlog passed in `local-2026-10-26T19-24-13-014Z`. The parallel delegation fixture failed during PostgreSQL initdb, before browser or model execution; its failed cleanup grade is retained. A disposable standalone initdb probe then passed. No semaphore sets or kernel settings were changed before that probe/recheck. After confirming no remaining fixture process, its private temporary files were removed. - One separate delegation recheck passed in `local-2026-10-26T19-29-24-800Z`, with one attempt, zero automatic retries and successful cleanup. Both passing current-source cells use definition `3f2c9ba2d03e3dcddde47ddab3b43bc52de977f25e256fceae0a24c9128e204b`. The earlier bootstrap failure and the historical provider startup failure remain distinct. These local results omit automatic source-SHA metadata; the clean checkout SHA is recorded here from the execution session. - The later broad local run reported `could not create semaphores: No space left on device`. A bounded cleanup removed 32 current-user PostgreSQL sets with 17 members, marker 537, a dead recorded creator and zero waiters. No live process or kernel limit was changed by that cleanup. The test process group was subsequently stopped; no broad rerun is planned. This direct later resource failure does not prove the precise cause of the earlier live initdb failure. - Review follow-up adds only static catalog validation and documentation of the existing five-minute journey bound. The executable definition is unchanged. Focused catalog/oracle tests passed 28/28; no redundant live run is claimed. - Final head `30fcb36ac9ae1f0270a589dbfafcec91ca6a03f3` passed all required and underlying CI checks in [run 40391402347](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40391402347), including `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`. Greptile and Paperclip Review both scored this head 5/5, with all review threads resolved. The static follow-up leaves every executable definition input byte-identical to the live-tested source at `39ad80b`. Normal squash auto-merge is enabled. Actual merge is pending eligible code-owner approval for the owned dependency manifest; no protection is bypassed. ## Risks - Live model behavior can vary. One missing turn-start event remains unexplained; this PR does not claim provider reliability or broad catalog qualification. - Subscription costs are unpriced. Explicit fixture funding admits that usage. Run counts and deadlines remain bounded, but the dollar limit cannot cap unknown cost. - Account identity exceptions apply only to known private Codex runtime files. Token reuse, unknown files and model-visible rollout content remain blocking findings. - Deterministic checks establish saved state, output structure, required brief facts and access. They do not score all prose quality. Initial samples also require human inspection. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, code execution, browser and repository tools. The precise model revision and context window are not exposed to this session. Live eval agents used `gpt-5.6-sol`; that is the evaluated model, not a claim about the authoring model. ## 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 local tests; focused suites pass and the interrupted full-run failures are documented above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |