mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-30 13:20:54 +01:00
dfd5b1ac6205b6ec8f56752dfc5d3f9c02c26b6d
6
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
faa8e452c7 |
fix(tasks): stop repeated reminders for historical questions (#15392)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task questions remain saved so a person can answer them later. > - The composer moves an old question into history after a newer human message. > - Native completion still treated every pending question as a required response. > - This caused agents to demand an old answer after the person moved work forward. > - This pull request shares the historical-question rule across context and task execution. > - Agents can finish verified work while the original question remains answerable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15229, Refs #14613, Refs #13130. **What happened?** An agent repeatedly asked a person to answer a question that had moved into feed history. Completion feedback explicitly told the agent to request a response. The saved pending row also blocked task completion. **Expected behavior** A question before newer human direction remains answerable in the feed. Its pending state alone must not require another reminder or stop completed work. A new input blocker, an approval, or a configured review stage must keep its gate. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let a task agent create an ordinary question. 2. Dismiss the question and send a newer task message. 3. Let the agent finish the requested work and submit its completion report. 4. Observe a demand to answer the old question and a retained completion gate. ## What Changed - Add one company-scoped predicate for historical questions. Only later human comments count. Exclude agent attribution, run attribution, system notices, and untrusted source data. - Apply the predicate to completion feedback, native waits, finalization, commit validation, retry validation, blocked routing, and successful-run handoff. - Include question classification and guidance in heartbeat context and both native task-context tools. Add the guidance to fresh and resumed task prompts. - Replace automatic reminders for current ordinary questions with instructions to assess the real blocker, continue independent work, and withdraw obsolete questions through the existing API. - Preserve historical question rows during completion while cancelling their live native source runs through the existing post-commit and recovery paths. Let an authorized human answer them after completion without reopening work or creating a response wake. Preserve cancellation, current-input, approval, permission, credential, connection, and review gates. Add no dismissal storage or migration. - Document the rule in the execution contract and agent skill. Refresh generated capability source anchors. Add database-backed status, context, attribution, and governance regression tests. ## Verification - `pnpm build` passed. The server rebuild also passed after the lifecycle fix. Generated capability contract and inventory checks passed after the agent documentation update. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. Final `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` also passed after the last test additions. - Lifecycle and interaction regressions passed: 224 tests in 3 suites. Context and prompt tests also passed. Final historical-question cases passed (33 tests), native cancellation/recovery cases passed (6 tests), and the existing interaction/confirmation suites passed (72 tests). The full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after more than two hours with unrelated fixture/hook timeout failures; it did not pass. All 52 successful GitHub checks are green on the latest commit, including the complete test matrix; no checks are pending or failing. Greptile is 5/5 and both review threads are resolved. - Regression cases cover the old-question/new-human-message sequence, final task status, answering after completion with no wake, live-run cancellation and crash recovery, current input blockers, both task-context tools, API context, timestamp precision, attribution boundaries, and protected gates. ## Risks - A later human task message makes an earlier ordinary question historical even if its input is still missing. The agent must identify the current blocker and ask only for information that still prevents work. - Browser dismissal remains a local preference. Dismissal without a later human message is not recorded by this change. - No schema change or data migration. Completion retains ordinary historical questions; cancellation still expires them. A completed task accepts historical answers only from an authorized human and creates no response-delivery outbox row. Governed requests retain their gates. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository editing, code execution, and browser diagnostics. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size are not exposed in 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d034ba7491 |
fix(interactions): derive question storage from canonical forms (#14946)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents request human input through durable issue interactions. > - A question form has a canonical presentation and a compatibility storage format. > - The creation API required agents to write both formats. > - Tool guidance told agents to split text and choice questions across those formats. > - This pull request accepts one complete canonical form and derives storage fields on the server. > - The benefit is a complete question card with stable answer and retry behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: Refs #13630 and #14430. PR #13630 addresses the display of historical partial forms. This change fixes creation and keeps the check that rejects conflicting new forms. **What happened?** A question save supplied three compatibility questions and one canonical text question. The API correctly rejected the incomplete canonical form. The Runner's tool description encouraged this split. Sending only a complete canonical form also failed because the API required compatibility questions. **Expected behavior** An agent sends one complete `payload.questionSet` with every text and choice question. Paperclip derives `payload.questions` for storage and answer compatibility. Existing legacy requests remain valid. Explicitly conflicting dual forms remain invalid. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Call `paperclip_request_human_input` with `interactionKind: "questions"`. 2. Send `payload: { version: 1, questionSet: ... }` with a required text question and a required choice question. 3. The old API rejects the missing compatibility questions. With this change, it stores both questions and preserves the canonical form. 4. Retry with the same idempotency key. Confirm that only one interaction exists. 5. Submit both answers. Confirm that the normal resolver and continuation rules apply. **Paperclip version or commit** The branch is based on `cf8ad63c8`. The problem affects the native Runner and the interaction creation API. **Deployment mode** Server deployment with the native Paperclip Runner. Integration tests use the real interaction service and an embedded test database. ## What Changed - Add one shared canonical-to-storage projection. Reuse it for native harness question requests. - Accept canonical-only question creation at the shared validator and server boundary. - Export the input type and update the plugin SDK and its RPC contract. - Advertise a typed, complete question form in the live and scenario tool schemas. - Enforce canonical text and custom-answer constraints before ordinary or native resolution. Preserve harmless display whitespace. - Run regex matching in isolated workers with a deadline and resource limits. Both answer paths await the result before persistence. Saved native delivery uses the validated answer without taking another worker slot. - Update agent guidance and generated Runner contracts. - Test mixed forms, option-ID collisions, retries, answers, legacy requests, and conflicting forms. ## Verification - Interaction service, HTTP route, native bridge, and Runner authority suites: 221 tests passed after correcting an obsolete tool-description assertion. - Shared validator, plugin SDK, CLI, and UI compatibility suites: 67 tests passed. - Runner core tool-contract suite: 20 tests passed. AJV validates live and scenario schemas. - Final review regressions: 172 shared, service, native bridge, and authority tests passed. These cover text length, pattern, numeric limits, whitespace, custom option IDs, and historical pending cards. - Runner session suites: 67 tests passed. Published example tests: 4 tests passed. - Server typecheck and the shared/server builds passed after the compatibility fixes. - Final delivery verification: 35 response-delivery tests passed. The native delivery regression proves saved answers do not enter pattern workers; server typecheck and build passed. - Pattern security and answer-flow verification: 205 tests passed after repairing the child fixture loader. These cover pathological matching, event-loop responsiveness, worker concurrency, slot cleanup, HTTP routes, native delivery, and the full helper in a child process. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the bounded-worker revision. - `pnpm build` passed on the bounded-worker revision. - All 55 GitHub checks passed on `fe457af`; four optional jobs were skipped. An unchanged Cursor adapter test timed out once in CI, passed locally, and passed on one failed-job rerun. - Reviewers can send the canonical-only mixed form above and verify that the saved interaction contains both canonical and compatibility questions. ## Risks - The creation API accepts a new input shape. Stored rows and answer contracts keep the existing shape. - The shared projection must preserve synthetic free-text option IDs. Collision and native round-trip tests cover this behavior. - Historical partial rows remain readable. New conflicting dual forms, including written-answer mismatches, remain rejected. - Existing pending cards retain the written-answer paths offered by their stored options. Canonical text constraints still apply. - Ordinary answers now enforce declared canonical constraints before persistence. Invalid answers leave the card pending. - Regex validation has a one-second deadline and a four-worker capacity limit. A complex pattern or capacity error leaves the card pending with a validation error. - No database migration or change to company authorization is required. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The session exposes the GPT-6 model family; its exact runtime model identifier and context window size are not exposed. Used reasoning, 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3c561642b4 |
fix(chat): resolve approvals and preserve unanswered questions (#14613)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents ask for decisions and optional details through cards in chat. > - A clear approval in a message can leave the matching card pending. > - An unanswered question can also block an unrelated later reply. > - Decisions need a saved source message, while optional questions need to remain answerable in history. > - This pull request records conversational decisions and lets users move on from questions and answer them later. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Native Claude and Codex could act on approval in chat while the original approval card stayed pending. Pending question forms stayed above the composer, were absent from history, and could suppress later chat replies. A late native question answer could wait for a finished run to reconnect. **Expected behavior** The active agent records a clear approval or refusal against the exact card and user message. Ambiguous replies do not grant consent. Users can send another message without answering a question. The question remains pending in history and can be reopened and answered later. The saved answer reaches the agent. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Ask an agent to propose work with a confirmation card, then approve it in chat. 2. Check that the original card records that approval before work starts. 3. Ask an interactive question, send an unrelated message, and reload. 4. Open the unanswered question from history and submit an answer. Related work: #14408 added completion delivery. #14607 tests completion reporting turns. Neither records conversational answers on approval cards. ## What Changed - Add a confirmation endpoint backed by a user comment, with schema validation, OpenAPI discovery, and native Plan-mode access. Ask mode remains read-only. - Check company, active run, actor, current session, message provenance, revision, and resolver policy. Save the decision and audit in one transaction. Retries do not repeat effects. Emit resolution telemetry after commit. - Give fresh and resumed chat turns the actual pending confirmation identities. Teach agents to save clear conversational decisions before acting and to clarify ambiguity. - Keep unanswered Agent Chat questions as compact history entries. A newer user message closes the old form. Question cards never contribute to composer pending counts or navigation, including after dismissing a fresh form. The history card is the sole reminder; clicking it restores that exact form and draft. - Preserve Agent Chat questions when later messages or questions arrive. Historical ordinary inputs no longer gate later chat replies. Current-run requests, task execution, and governed approvals keep their gates. Remove the special acknowledgement-publication proof helpers that this rule replaces. - Route answers to finished native runs through durable fresh-wake delivery, with existing idempotency and source-question context. Settle late replies against contiguous completed conversation turns and freeze their history replay; failed, unhandled, and newly arriving messages remain actionable. - Add real-component Storybook scenarios, database and UI regressions, and a three-turn native Claude/Codex E2E case. Capture distinct, UI-ready screenshots and report the individual assertions. ## Verification - Focused decision/publication/UI regressions after merging master: 288 passed; subsequent UI draft, failed-send, and conversation checks: 199 passed. - Native question and durable delivery regressions: 106 passed, including all four terminal run states and exactly-once late delivery. Seven targeted regressions fail against the original implementation and pass with the fix. - Latest conversation/decision/native-delivery regressions after the master merge: 121 passed. Covers completed progress, missing or failed intervening turns, new messages during a late reply, stale sessions, and frozen retry/replay boundaries. Four new assertions fail before the ordering fix. - E2E support suite after the master merge: 792 passed. Negative controls reject expired cards, wrong questions/answers, stale or missing replies, unrelated clarification forms, and unexpected tasks. - The embedded-browser walkthrough caught one additional defect: dismissing a fresh question still showed a composer badge. Both Cancel and close-button regressions failed before the fix. The fix at `65f2ade12` passes 170 chat-thread tests and 792 E2E support tests. After merging master, 232 chat-thread/confirmation tests, server/UI typechecks, and token gates pass. The preview and two-provider live E2E pass at `e5512a206`; Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads at that commit. All 55 checks are now successful at `e5512a206` (four conditional checks skipped), including the aggregate verification gate and clean-install canary test. The first attempt was interrupted by simultaneous CI worker shutdowns; one failed-job rerun passed without code changes. - [Published Storybook](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/storybook/branches/codex~2Fchat-approval-resolution/?path=/story/chat-comments-agent-chat-unanswered-questions--moved-on): nine real-component scenarios. Manually exercised move on, reopen, preserve draft, answer later, answer one of multiple questions, and a custom mobile answer in the embedded browser. Retested fresh Cancel and close-button dismissal in the updated build, then reopened and submitted the preserved Green selection and inspected its answered receipt. Static preview has no live model/backend; its callbacks are fixture responses. - [First live campaign](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36714504406-1/) reproduced the late-answer completion-state defect on both providers despite correct saved answers and acknowledgements. It also exposed a valid imperative clarification rejected by the old oracle. Both issues are fixed with regression controls; this failing run is retained as evidence. - [Four-cell qualification](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36717804064-1/) passed 4/4 at `2bf8a1009`: unanswered-question return and ambiguous confirmation, each on native Claude and Codex. Inspected saved state, source-message decisions, visible cards, and agent replies. Both late-answer chats settled to waiting; no unrequested tasks were created. [Final branch rerun](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36719666238-1/) passed 2/2 at `142630720`: the same unanswered-question journey after merging master, plus an additional screenshot and browser assertion for the actual late-answer acknowledgement. - [Composer-reminder E2E](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36727006818-1/) passed 2/2 at `5b62c52d9`: native Claude and Codex, three turns each, with explicit no-badge assertions before and after reload. Inspected saved pending/answered state, both screenshots with a clear composer, and actual Blue acknowledgements; all five behavioral matchers passed per provider and neither created tasks. Cost coverage is partial; this is bounded workflow qualification. - [Fresh-dismissal E2E](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36742773318-1/) passed 2/2 at `e5512a206`: native Claude and Codex, including fresh Cancel, clear composer, reopen, unrelated message, reload, late Blue answer, and actual agent acknowledgement. All five behavioral matchers pass per provider. Inspected the fresh-dismissal screenshots and saved pending/answered identity; neither created tasks. Cost coverage is partial (4/6 runs). - Prior evidence remains available in [the earlier campaign](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36642252725-1/). Its early loading screenshot and overwritten final capture prompted the UI-ready, distinct screenshot fixes. ## Risks - The model interprets intent. The server verifies permission and provenance; it does not infer consent from text. Ambiguous and unrelated replies are not approvals. - Historical questions can accumulate. They remain visible, pending, and answerable; no automatic answer or expiry is invented. - The change to completion gates is scoped to Agent Chat and ordinary historical inputs. Current-turn and governed approvals retain their existing controls. - Live qualification is limited to the selected stories. Broader native onboarding finalization remains separate work. - No database migration. Telemetry adds no fields or values; the contract and README document the commit boundary. Privacy review was requested on the PR. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser-test orchestration. The exact model ID and context-window size are not exposed to 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
24beb00575 |
feat(runner): add rich ACP transport and durable interaction foundation (#14430)
Add shared rich ACP transport, durable questions and permissions, verified provider packaging, and bounded activity and plan presentation. Keep Cursor, Copilot, and Pi pending their separate provider qualification. Persist interaction settlement before publication, fence failed writes until fresh recovery, and preserve owned-process cleanup. Incorporate reviewed mainline integration with extended harness coverage. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
43acbcc398 |
fix(runner): preserve sessions and complete question and approval continuations (#13655)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The native runner connects task state to provider sessions. > - Follow-up turns must retain provider memory and carry new user direction. > - Lost session IDs caused repeated context and extra input tokens. > - Native question answers and approval races could leave valid work blocked. > - This pull request repairs those paths and adds regression coverage. > - Agents can continue accepted work without repeating the conversation or losing the user's answer. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13574. That merged PR shortened continuation prompts and moved question instructions into tool documentation. This change preserves sessions and fixes failures exposed by broader testing. Related runtime work: #13408 and #13410. **What happened?** Native follow-up turns could lose the provider session ID. Completion guidance could replace the original task with its latest comment. Claude native questions could remain pending after the user answered. Approval during a running tool call could suspend the run before the tool response arrived. Onboarding and chat handoff instructions also caused repeated planning or missing plan documents. **Expected behavior** Reuse a valid provider session. Send only new events when that session already has the history. Preserve the task requirements and apply later user direction. Store the question answer and deliver it to the waiting run. Finish governed tool responses before suspending. Execute the accepted plan without asking for the same approval again. **Steps to reproduce** Run the continuation, local-session-integrity, first-task, and agent-chat suites with native Codex and Claude. Include provider-question-bridge, accept-while-running, and plan-handoff. **Paperclip version or commit** This branch is based on master |
||
|
Dotta
|
bc9ba7cd26 |
feat(runner): project native runs into task threads (#12321)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The experimental Paperclip Runner can execute a guarded Codex run and persist provider-neutral events. > - The task page still reads direct-adapter transcripts and cannot present those native events. > - Structured runner questions must also use the existing task interaction experience. > - Runtime selection must use the persisted run mode, not an adapter name or a current feature flag. > - This pull request projects native events and questions into the existing task thread. > - Direct adapters keep their existing transcript, composer, interaction, and finalization paths. > - The benefit is a complete native Codex task thread without a behavior change for existing adapters. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12202. This pull request replaces that stale implementation on current `master`. **What happened?** The server persists native runner events and structured input requests. The task page only consumes direct-adapter transcripts. A native run therefore cannot present a complete transcript, usage, or question flow through the normal task experience. **Expected behavior** Native runs project persisted provider-neutral events into the existing task thread. Native structured questions use the existing interaction card. Direct adapters retain their current behavior. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable the experimental runner. 2. Start a native Codex run that emits progress, usage, a structured question, and a final reply. 3. Open the task page. 4. Observe that the direct-adapter transcript path cannot project the native event records. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at `67f9867bc`. ## What Changed - Add the canonical structured-question validator and shared contract exports. - Materialize native input requests as existing task interactions. - Validate native answers and deliver them through the durable question-response receipt. - Resume the original PRP request with an idempotent `request.resolve` command. - Project native messages, tool activity, cumulative usage, and final replies into the existing transcript model. - Propagate persisted `runtimeMode` to the task page and select native handling only for `runtimeMode: "native"`. - Expire pending interactions through the shared issue service on every terminal transition, including decisions, stalled reviews, tree control, and pipeline retry cleanup. - Queue native run cancellation while a transaction is open and execute it only after the owning transaction commits. - Keep nonterminal and non-runner issue paths on their existing service call shapes and behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed, including the Rust runner release build and protocol/catalog drift gates. - Focused native-thread and lifecycle suites — 18 files and 481 tests passed during review. - `issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts` — 19/19 passed after the final transactional-queue expectation update. - `issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` — 87/87 passed in the final isolated compatibility rerun. - GitHub Actions — policy, build, canary, typecheck/release registry, 5 serialized server shards, 8 general-test shards, 3 browser shards, and both aggregate gates passed on `7793f3193`. - Security — Snyk, Socket Project Report, Socket PR Alerts, and Superagent passed. - Greptile — 5/5 on `7793f3193`; all actionable review threads resolved. - `git diff --check` — passed. - Diff against `master`: 44 files. ## Compatibility Boundary - Native transcript polling only runs when the persisted run reports `runtimeMode: "native"`. - Missing or legacy runtime modes continue through `useLiveRunTranscripts`. - Legacy questions keep the existing optional free-text choice. - Native closed select sets can suppress that legacy fallback. - Terminal cleanup uses the same issue service for native and legacy interactions; only a bound native question schedules a native run cancellation. - Native cancellation happens after transaction commit, so failed or rolled-back writes do not cancel a still-valid run. - The durable delivery service checks the original native request before it considers a continuation run. - This pull request adds no migration, dependency, workflow, manifest, or lockfile change. ## Risks The main risk is routing a direct-adapter task through native handling or changing terminal issue behavior. The implementation selects the native path only from persisted runtime facts, retains the existing nonterminal call shape, and schedules native cancellation only for a validated bound native question after commit. Focused and repository-wide tests cover both paths. Native requests remain bound to the company, issue, run, and agent; answers are validated, durable, and idempotent across reconnects. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 family. The client does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the affected local tests and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated the compatibility notes for this change - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I addressed all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |