mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
ec75547a2e3bdf665091da59eb15dcfca7cacf44
3696
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
ec75547a2e |
perf(workspaces): validate cohort members concurrently (#20387)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Online workspace migration preserves each member under shared source locks. > - A cohort must validate every member before it reserves or captures state. > - Two read phases checked each member in sequence. > - An eight-member operation spent about eight minutes in those phases before capture. > - This pull request runs the bounded readers together and joins all results. > - Each source check, lock, and write order stays in place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An eight-member cohort spent 4 minutes 13 seconds in preflight, then 2 minutes 20 seconds in serial reservation, then 4 minutes 10 seconds in the read checks after finalizer locks. Capture started only after these phases. The two read phases invoked the same checks in sequence for each member. **Expected behavior** Run these read checks together within the existing eight-member limit. Wait for every started reader before throwing or releasing the source or finalizer fence. Keep reservation and publication serial. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Import a shared-source cohort with several members. 2. Delay one member's preflight or recovery inspection. 3. Observe that the old loop does not start the next reader until that inspection ends. 4. Fail one reader while another is still running. The fence must remain held until both readers finish. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced baseline: `facd409073c3c149421fd8f5af86c571fc28f294`. The branch now includes `9c634e42e449e91f3935cf59036981852f94a65e` and its merged queue-owner change. The queue hunks are unchanged. **Deployment mode** Server with PostgreSQL and online workspace migration. Related: [cohort migration in #19873](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/19873), [indexed workspace lookups in #20372](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20372), and [queued source-lock admission in #20370](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20370). The duplicate search found no open change for these two read phases. ## What Changed - Run cohort preflight member checks with `Promise.allSettled`. The existing input limit bounds this phase to eight readers. - Run the member checks after finalizer lock acquisition the same way. - Throw the first rejected result in the original member order after every reader has joined. - Add one fault fixture for both phases. It checks real source/finalizer locks, peer joining, retained local data, and the absence of capture or publication. ## Verification - Against the unchanged baseline, the two new phase cases failed because only one reader started instead of two. These were behavioral failures, not setup failures. - Focused real-PostgreSQL cohort checks selected 13 cases. The first run passed 10 and failed three existing controls. The two new reader-join cases passed. Eight unrelated cases were not selected. - The first run's existing capture overlap check observed one active uploader instead of two. Two existing fence/commit controls reached their 15-second test limits. Server typechecking ran at the same time. This does not establish the cause of those failures. - One retry ran only those same three controls after typechecking finished. All three passed with unchanged source, assertions, and deadlines. Eighteen cases were not selected. The earlier failures remain accounted for; they are not classified as infrastructure faults or flakes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` and `git diff --check` passed. - These focused counts were recorded before the non-overlapping queue-owner rebase. On final head `06158d905c4716bf44b1d028f96c706ac60e0e11`, both new reader-fence cases passed again. Nineteen cases were not selected in this recheck. - Focused commands: - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/services/remote-workspace-cohort-migration.test.ts -t 'joins|captures two shared-Git|before reservation|source fingerprints|member journal|outer commit|fence connection' --maxWorkers=1` - Retry only: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/services/remote-workspace-cohort-migration.test.ts -t 'captures two shared-Git|actual outer commit|actual fence connection' --maxWorkers=1` - Checks used Node 24.22.2, pnpm 9.15.4, and disposable PostgreSQL 18.1. No hosted operation used this patch. End-to-end improvement is unverified. - Public commands, input limits, journal state, and recovery contracts do not change. No command documentation update is needed. ## Risks - Concurrent reads increase database and filesystem load while source locks are held. The existing cohort input limit bounds each phase to eight readers. Initial source discovery already uses the same bound. - A failed phase waits for started peers. This retains the fence until their work ends. Existing query and caller limits remain in place. - Serial reservation and publication remain. Every freshness, fingerprint, recovery, and publication check still runs. - The local tests prove overlap and joining. They do not establish a hosted speedup. Database contention can limit the benefit. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, code editing, shell tools, and real PostgreSQL tests. ## 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 Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
2550f399d9 |
fix(lifecycle): align stop proof for pre-dispatch resource waits (#20384)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and controls when their work can run. > - An agent pause waits until every earlier run has stopped. > - Recovery already treats verified workspace and AI-capacity waits as pre-dispatch outcomes. > - The stop proof did not accept those same receipts. Historical waits could keep an agent pausing forever. > - This pull request shares the resource-wait classification and the existing execution-event check. > - The benefit is consistent stop evidence without a new lifecycle command, database backfill, or host-boot assumption. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18147 and #17718. This fixes the verified resource-wait case of #18147. It does not certify ambiguous historical runs that have no positive non-execution evidence. An agent can have an old cancelled legacy run with `errorCode: workspace_busy`, `executionStage: preparing`, and `executionRecovery: { kind: workspace_wait, providerWorkStarted: false }`. No process, native coordinator, or retained resource exists. Recovery recognizes this as a resource wait, but pause previously required a stop acknowledgment from an executor that never started. ### Credit and related work Thanks to @br1an-c0des (#17692) and @crownlayerapp (#15383) for the focused preparation and shared-admission analysis, @lucasweismann-ai (#18072) for the durable dispatch-evidence and race analysis, and @Pdesengrini (#18905) for the cancellation-receipt and process-identity guard cases. We reviewed these alternatives before implementing this smaller change. No contributor commits were cherry-picked. The design uses receipts already written by core. It does not adopt a reboot-time bypass, a new adapter-entry journal, or a pause-abort route. #17236 and #20037 address the separate cost of history reads. ## What Changed - Add one shared classifier for matching workspace and AI-capacity wait receipts. Use it in legacy recovery and cancellation stop proof. - Reuse the existing dispatch-event predicate instead of maintaining another event list. - Retain checks for native execution references, unresolved workspace obligations, controller leases, and resource cleanup. A live controller or cleanup still in flight cannot pass the proof. - Add a focused PostgreSQL suite. It drives the real pause worker with historical wait records and checks Retry eligibility against the same evidence. - Document the contract. No schema, API, UI, dependency, or scheduling change is required. ## Verification Source checkout on macOS arm64, Node 26.12.0, isolated local PostgreSQL 18, synthetic data only. ```sh node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run --root server \ src/modules/agent-lifecycle/__tests__/resource-wait-stop.test.ts \ src/services/legacy-execution-recovery.test.ts ``` - 61 tests passed across these two files. - All eight positive regressions failed on unchanged master. The fix restores them. - After rebasing onto current master, the 61 focused tests passed again. Another 53 selected tests passed in `explicit-native-continuation.test.ts` with `-t 'pre-dispatch review wait|unclaimed workspace retry|historical native preparation'`. The other 361 cases in that file were not run. - Guard cases cover wrong/missing receipts, dispatch events, process identity, native ownership, live controller leases, workspace recovery, cleanup in flight, unreceipted remote resources, and an unknown historical HTTP dispatch. - A remote lease passes only after its exact termination receipt is stored. - Secret/PII diff scan and `git diff --check` passed. - Standard Greptile reviewed commit `201a61d2bb63290ca9b9b9d524e6c6715a872310`: [5/5 with no actionable findings](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20384#issuecomment-6753165178). No review threads are unresolved. - Local testing is limited to affected cases. GitHub CI owns broad typecheck, build, and test coverage. Verification setup failures remain accounted for: worktree preflight could not complete because Cargo is unavailable; the first bundled PostgreSQL run failed because its macOS binary lacks a shared library. The focused tests passed on a separate, temporary local PostgreSQL 18 cluster. An early local server typecheck could not resolve the unbuilt Runner package; it is not claimed as a pass. ## Risks - Stop proof now accepts existing positive resource-wait receipts. Missing PIDs, terminal status, elapsed time, and a different boot ID remain insufficient. - The receipt must match its error code. The runtime must remain unresolved, with a preparation or settled stage and no conflicting native or workspace references. - The shared cancellation proof is also used by explicit continuation and Retry. Those paths keep their existing user-intent, ownership, pause, budget, and authorization gates. A stop proof does not itself start another run. - Runs that lack usable evidence remain held. This PR does not claim to repair every run shape reported on #18147. - No migration or live data edit is needed. No hosted deployment is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, code execution, PostgreSQL regression tests, and GitHub tools. The exact serving revision, context window, and internal thinking configuration 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 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 Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9c634e42e4 |
fix(workspace): bound queued source-lock admission for imports (#20370)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Existing local workspaces need durable imports before a volume-free deployment. > - Imports must acquire the same source locks as workspace writers. > - Try-only admission can repeatedly lose to background maintenance, even when each writer finishes. > - This pull request adds an optional bounded wait to the canonical migration APIs. > - Operators can join the source-lock queue while all existing preservation checks remain active. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An online import can repeatedly return `workspace_source_busy` while background workspace maintenance reacquires its project source lock. The import does not join the PostgreSQL lock queue. **Expected behavior** An administrative import can wait for a finite writer to finish. One wait budget covers the complete source scope. Timeout or cancellation must release acquired locks before the import reserves a journal. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Hold the source lock for an eligible local workspace. 2. Start an online import while the writer holds that lock. 3. Release the writer. Before this change, the import has already refused admission. With `sourceLockWaitMs`, the import acquires the source scope and commits normally. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master `0e3fdebea8257bdff11573081c76b306f12db230`. **Deployment mode** External PostgreSQL with an online workspace import. Related preservation work: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20311. ## What Changed - Add optional `sourceLockWaitMs` to singleton and cohort migration APIs. Omitted options keep current admission behavior. - Queue the sorted source keys with one decreasing wait budget. Abort cancels only the dedicated backend identified by PID and backend start time. - Use an independent source transaction for queued singleton imports. Keep lifecycle checks, fresh source checks, journal ownership, and publication after commit. - Document the canonical API option. Add real PostgreSQL importer regressions for release, timeout, abort, and partial-key cleanup. - Correct the inherited task-case lookup summary so the existing search-discovery regression passes without changing its assertion or search algorithm. ## Verification - Baseline RED: the new singleton regression fails on the unchanged product because the import returns busy without queueing. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/remote-workspace-migration.test.ts -t 'queued|bounds the whole source queue'`: 20 passed, including five new cases. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/isolated-remote-workspace-source-lock.test.ts`: 4 passed. - Server layer typecheck, `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs`, and `git diff --check` passed. - Tests used Node 24.22.2 and the existing embedded PostgreSQL fixture. Hosted rollout verification remains pending. - CI build, typecheck, browser suites, all serialized suites, and the other general shards passed. The final server shard failed only the inherited `case-history-api-discovery.test.ts:14` search-ranking assertion. Its unchanged local regression reproduces on the base and passes 3/3 with a separate one-line route-summary correction. The shared one-line summary correction is included in follow-up commit `8163ffa9d4728134676b84c8c242a5bf62c802b5`; the unchanged case-discovery suite passes 3/3 locally. The original CI attempt remains failed: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42704666536/job/129458605783. ## Risks Queued admission can hold earlier source keys while it waits for a later key. The caller controls the finite budget. The abort path opens a short-lived dedicated cancellation connection. If cancellation cannot connect, PostgreSQL's remaining lock timeout still bounds the wait. This option must be called at the root of administrative work; an external scope that already holds the same source locks can cause self-contention. The existing pre-held journal-resume path must keep its omitted-option behavior. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with tool use and code execution. The exact deployment identifier 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 - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
46ca7d4377 |
fix(api-search): stop function words from pushing case lookup off page one (#20382)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Chat and task agents find API operations with `search_api`, which
ranks the runner API catalog by word matches in each operation's method,
path and summary
> - The ranker scored function words such as "for", "the" and "of" like
resource words, so any summary that says "for" got 5 points for that
word alone
> - #20355 added two chat-bootstrap summaries that say "for up to ten
tasks" and "for one task". After that, the query "case for task" put
`GET /api/issues/{issueId}/cases` at rank 6, off the first page of 5
> - #20354 promised that agents find a task's case on the first search
page, and its test `case-history-api-discovery.test.ts` now fails on
master
> - This pull request stops the ranker from scoring function words, so
the resource words in the query decide the rank
> - The benefit is that master is green again and agents find the case
lookup (and other "X for an issue" reads) on the first page, whatever
new summaries say "for"
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #20354, #20355. Supersedes #19388 (the same ranker change, opened
earlier and not merged).
**What happened**
On a clean checkout of master at
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3cc1032f6a |
fix: deliver saved answers to dependency-blocked tasks (#20363)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people direct agent work through tasks and structured answers. > - Dependencies stop task execution until prerequisite work finishes. > - A person must still be able to answer or redirect the assignee of a blocked task. > - Ordinary comments already get a bounded answer/triage turn. A saved question response has no comment ID, so the same gates reject it. > - Later dispatch also requires an active task and tries to check it out. That conflicts with bounded interaction on a blocked task. > - This pull request verifies the stored human response at each gate and keeps the turn in bounded interaction mode. > - The assignee can receive the answer without starting dependency work or removing its blockers. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19923. That change covers dependency waits and comment retries. This change covers stored interaction responses that have no comment ID. **What happened?** A parent task waits on a parked child. The assignee asked a setup question. After a person answers, the response stays queued. Sending that saved response is refused as `issue_dependencies_blocked`. Ordinary new messages can reach the same assignee. Passing admission alone is insufficient. The dispatch status check rejects a blocked task, and automatic checkout then tries to start work whose prerequisites are unfinished. **Expected behavior** Deliver the stored human answer or confirmation to its requesting assignee as a bounded answer/triage turn. Keep the task blocked and keep its dependency relationships. Preserve current-owner, pause, approval, budget, recovery, and execution gates. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign a parent task and make a backlog child block it. 2. Save a question on the parent and answer it as a person. 3. Dispatch its resolved-interaction wake, or send the saved answer from the task queue. 4. Observe that the answer does not reach the provider while an ordinary comment can run in answer/triage mode. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master at `653ab8b18f76`. This branch is rebased onto master at `0e3fdebea8`. ## What Changed - Verify the stored response by company, task, requesting agent, status, kind, human resolver, and resolution time. A context flag alone is insufficient. - Allow a verified response through dependency admission and claim in the existing bounded interaction mode. - Recheck that response during scheduled retry promotion and final provider dispatch. - Keep bounded responses from checking out the blocked task or setting it to `in_progress`, including when the last blocker finishes during preparation. - Preserve continuation classification through workspace and AI-account resource waits, so the final response and owner checks still run. - Correct the task-case API summary so the existing `case for task` discovery regression passes on the first search page. This fixes a pre-existing failure exposed by full CI, without changing search ranking or assertions. - Ignore obsolete Retry notices after newer conversation work, without acknowledging saved input or changing execution authority. - Document the response contract. Add real PostgreSQL and assembled-heartbeat regressions. ## Verification - Final commit `ba4b337cf1bb0236b7c0a742665b222ee894ff51`: [required CI passed, attempt 2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42706363120/attempts/2), including typecheck, production build, server/chat tests, Runner checks, and all 8 browser shards. PR status: 59 passing checks and 3 normal skips. - Red: answered questions and accepted/rejected confirmations return no admitted run before the fix. All three new positive cases fail at the dependency gate. A resource-wait retry also reproduces as refused before its gate is fixed. - Green: at delivery revision `9375a603e4`, focused heartbeat integration and classification passed 14 tests; retry scheduling and dispatch safety passed 241 tests. These use real PostgreSQL and controlled adapter and resource-availability boundaries. The wider initial dependency, native-continuation, and queue suites also passed before the final refinements. - Negative cases keep pending, missing, wrong-task, and agent-resolved responses blocked. Changing the response proof immediately before dispatch cancels the run without calling the provider. Policy controls retain the current assignee, task status, and pending approval checks. - Positive cases execute once, leave the parent blocked, preserve the dependency edge, and leave the child in backlog with no child execution. The same saved response survives a resource wait; removing its human proof refuses promotion. - The resource-wait provider-boundary and blocker-completion regressions also failed before their fixes. All 14 focused integration and classifier cases passed at delivery revision `9375a603e4`, including a changed response during retry preparation. - Red: a retained Retry for an older run makes a newer successful conversation display as failed. Green: all 78 database-backed query and interruption-presentation tests pass, including a later real failure and independent queued input controls. - Server layered typecheck and module-boundary checks passed at `11992aad0c7fbaf13e7548d71ee633560bd8bb6f`, before the one-line API summary correction. That CI passed build, typecheck and every browser shard, but exposed the pre-existing case-search assertion and a report-assets test timeout. Final-head CI passed as linked above. - Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 on final commit `ba4b337cf1bb0236b7c0a742665b222ee894ff51`, with no unresolved threads. - The existing API discovery suite reproduced its first-page assertion before the summary correction; all 3 cases pass afterward. The timed-out report-assets privacy test passed locally in isolation and the full support job passed on the final-head rerun. Runner shutdowns interrupted the first attempt; affected jobs were rerun once without code changes. A separate onboarding timeout also passed on that rerun. - `pnpm verify --explain` requests broad CI because the execution contract is a global input. The final CI run supplied that coverage. - Separately recovered the reported staging conversation through an ordinary message and the existing steering control. The agent acknowledged the message and the saved-answer queue drained. The fresh Notebook action subsequently succeeded. This was on the previously deployed revision; it does not claim this code is deployed. ## Risks - This changes admission and dispatch. Each gate checks the persisted response; no caller-supplied marker grants the exception. - The bounded turn does not check out the task, resolve a dependency, or approve another action. Existing pause, ownership, budget, approval, and stopped-execution controls still apply. - Each additional lookup is one primary-key read and runs only for a response on a dependency-blocked path. There is no new polling worker. - No migration is required. Older queued contexts get the exception only when their stored human response still verifies. No prior run or action is replayed by this change. - This PR does not roll out the code to staging. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository tools, code execution, and browser inspection. The runtime does not expose the exact model ID, context-window limit, or reasoning-mode label; those values are not asserted. ## 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
|
facd409073 |
perf(workspaces): index legacy workspace companion lookups (#20372)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Online workspace migration must retain prepared sources and recovery holds. > - Companion discovery reads saved workspace references from run profiles. > - The selector can scan large saved profiles even when it returns few rows. > - This pull request adds one company and workspace expression index. > - Companion discovery uses the same expression as existing migration lookups. > - The result preserves each source check and reduces history scan work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The companion selector used a JSON path expression with no matching index. A read-only plan on about 22,000 run rows showed a sequential scan over a table with about 1.3 GB of table and TOAST storage. A repeated inspection reached its statement timeout. Existing migration lookups use a different JSON operator form, so one expression index must match both callers. **Expected behavior** Use a company-scoped indexed lookup. Keep prepared and finalized references, the exact text comparison, native issue references, and run order. Keep all source and recovery validation. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Retain many run profiles with saved workspace references and wide JSON fields. 2. Inspect a workspace with few matching companion runs. 3. Explain the company and saved-workspace selector. Without the new index, it can scan run history and read unrelated JSON values. **Paperclip version or commit** Baseline: `0e3fdebea8257bdff11573081c76b306f12db230`. **Deployment mode** Server with PostgreSQL. The local proof uses disposable PostgreSQL 18.1. The observed server plan used PostgreSQL 17.11. Related: [batched companion discovery in #19735](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/19735). The existing batching remains in place. The duplicate search found no open workspace index change. This branch also carries the isolated API route-summary correction shared with [#20370](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20370). ## What Changed - Add one concurrent index on company ID and the saved native workspace ID expression. The index has no state, runtime, or status predicate. - Use nested JSON operators in companion discovery. Existing migration lookups already use this expression. Keep both accepted states and the same ordering. - Register the migration on the existing top-level migration path. Retain its advisory lock, interrupted index repair, and completion journal behavior. - Add a real PostgreSQL migration and ordered-result test. Update the existing companion query counter for the equivalent SQL form. - Generate the schema snapshot and retain the five newest snapshots. - Describe the task case-list route as “Find the cases for a task.” This keeps the route on the first discovery search page. Search logic and test assertions are unchanged. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/heartbeat-workspace-companion-index.test.ts --maxWorkers=1`: **1 passed**. It builds the concurrent index through the canonical migrator, checks index validity, preserves prepared/finalized and cross-issue/null-issue results, excludes foreign and malformed references, and checks one journal entry after a second migration call. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/services/remote-workspace-online-source.test.ts -t 'discovers all Git companions' --maxWorkers=1`: **1 passed; 86 not selected**. This uses the real source owner and retains finalized recovery holds, company isolation, and a fresh obligation between inspections. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`, migration numbering/safety checks, and `git diff --check`: **passed**. - One small local SQL comparison used the captured baseline selector, the changed selector, 3,012 synthetic rows, about 37.8 MB of table storage, and the new expression index. Ordered results were identical. One client timing changed from **8.70 ms to 0.86 ms**. This is one local warm-cache comparison, not a server latency claim. Hosted improvement is **unverified**. - Initial setup attempts failed before the affected test ran: registry access, local tsx IPC, and a missing SDK build. The canonical Node 24.22.2/pnpm 9.15.4 setup and SDK prerequisite resolved these setup failures. The local SQL timing client used Node 26.4.0; the focused application tests used Node 24.22.2. - [The first CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42705129724/job/129460702073) failed the inherited case-history API first-page search assertion. The same failure was reproduced on the unchanged base: the route ranked sixth for “case for task.” The isolated route-summary correction from #20370 passed the same three assertions. The search algorithm and assertions were not changed. - No public command changes require a documentation update. The schema and migration record the added index. No hosted DDL or deployment was performed for this PR. - Final head `c50101dabf46ade42b545d2051d724d93f413ccd`: [full CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42707623920) passed with 60 successful checks and three configured skips. [Fresh Greptile review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20372#issuecomment-6752305627) is 5/5 on this head with no open threads. ## Risks - The index adds storage and write cost when a run profile changes. - A concurrent build reads the table and can wait for old transactions. The existing migration path runs it outside a transaction and can repair an interrupted invalid index. - Existing nested-operator lookups can use the index. The companion selector needs this code change to use it. Other JSON path queries are unchanged. - The small local result does not establish end-to-end import speed or PostgreSQL 17 hosted latency. Fresh deployed measurement remains necessary. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, code editing, shell tools, and local PostgreSQL tests. ## 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
|
6583ffa3b4 |
fix(workspaces): migrate task directories with legacy shared mode (#20371)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A control-plane replacement must restore saved work without its old disk. > - Online workspace migration saves a guarded physical source to object storage. > - Some older task directories have shared workspace mode in their saved metadata. > - Their physical paths still identify one company and one source issue. > - The selected-source check rejects that mode even though the alias check accepts it. > - This pull request admits the old mode under the same physical-source and writer guards. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18835 and #19873 for workspace preservation and source-fence ownership. Related #11914 addresses mode selection during workspace reuse. This branch also carries the one-line API discovery correction shared with #20370. The search found no duplicate fix for this migration admission path. **What happened?** Online migration rejects an ordinary local task directory when its row has legacy `shared_workspace` mode. The directory can have the exact managed company and source-issue path, with no repository or branch. The selected-source check requires `isolated_workspace`, while its existing alias check permits both modes. **Expected behavior** Admit either saved mode only when the same physical path, company, source issue, aliases, lifecycle state and writer checks prove a safe source. Preserve the saved mode. Do not require global maintenance. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a `local_fs`, `project_primary` workspace with `shared_workspace` mode, a source issue, and a null provider reference. 2. Put its files at the managed `isolated-workspaces/<company>/<sourceIssue>` path. 3. Inventory online migration. The previous code reports that the source is unproven. 4. With this fix, migrate through the existing owner and restore the saved archive. **Paperclip version or commit** Base: `0e3fdebea8257bdff11573081c76b306f12db230` from freshly fetched master. **Deployment mode** Online local-filesystem workspace migration with durable snapshots. ## What Changed - Permit `shared_workspace` beside `isolated_workspace` in the existing physical task-source admission check. All other checks remain in their existing owners. - Extend the existing migration and archive-restore fixture with the legacy shared-mode task path and null provider reference. - Use the truthful task-case lookup summary “Find the cases for a task”. This restores its existing first-page discovery contract without changing search scores, pagination or tests. ## Verification - Canonical worktree preflight passed in 26.2 seconds with cached Node 24 and pnpm 9.15.4. The existing SDK dependency preparation completed before the server tests. An initial direct test attempt could not resolve the unbuilt SDK and executed no test cases. - **RED:** Against the previous admission rule, the original project-path fixture passed and the new task-path variant failed with `eligible: false`: 1 passed, 1 failed, 86 skipped, 13.58 seconds. - **GREEN:** All **88 tests** in `server/src/services/remote-workspace-online-source.test.ts` passed in **35.47 seconds** after the one-line fix. This includes migration, archive restore, foreign and mismatched source aliases, source-issue fencing, active execution, lifecycle, and publication-race controls. - Command: `node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run server/src/services/remote-workspace-online-source.test.ts --maxWorkers=1 --fsModuleCache` under Node 24. - `git diff --check` passed. Tests used disposable PostgreSQL and a local object-storage provider. Hosted migration acceptance remains separate. - Required CI [attempt 1](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42704874763/attempts/1) failed on previous head `c69ea90bc0f2f18707336004598e2429f590790d`. [Server shard 12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42704874763/job/129459250886) failed `case-history-api-discovery.test.ts:14`: the first five results for `case for task` did not include `GET /api/issues/{issueId}/cases`. This test source is unchanged in this PR. The dependent final verify gate failed. The attempt remains a nonpass; no retry has been requested. - The shared API discovery diagnosis reproduced the existing lookup route at rank six. The summary omitted a query term. The correction from #20370 changes only that truthful summary. On final head `0d645370545130a8a835da8c1a77030562b29049`, the unchanged three-case API discovery regression passed in **10.64 seconds**. The 88-case workspace proof above remains valid for its unchanged source and fixture inputs; it was not rerun. - Final head `0d645370545130a8a835da8c1a77030562b29049`: [fresh required CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42707521663) **passed** at 22:13:53 UTC on November 9. All 51 workflow jobs are accounted for: 49 successful and 2 skipped. The [final verify aggregate](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42707521663/job/129476327386) passed. The exact-head rollup and classic Snyk status are successful, with no failed or pending checks. - Fresh Greptile review is **5/5** for this final head, with no open inline threads. Ponytail's **5/5** review covers previous head `c69ea90bc0f2f18707336004598e2429f590790d`; it is historical evidence for the unchanged workspace patch, not a final-head review. The old failed CI attempt remains recorded above. ## Risks - This admits a previously refused saved metadata shape. The physical directory must still match the company and original source issue. The alias check still rejects a different issue on that task path. - Source, lifecycle, task and active-run fences are unchanged. No live metadata is rewritten to gain admission. Saved workspace modes and snapshot formats carry forward; no schema or command changes are needed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`), with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. Context-window size is not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 5.5
|
0e3fdebea8 |
perf: remove repeated reads and checks from run preparation (#20358)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Before each run starts, Core prepares the run: it opens the run log, resolves skills, and prepares the AI runtime > - Every run pays this preparation time before the agent can begin, for a new task or a follow-up, on a cold or a warm computer > - A trace on a hosted test deployment showed some preparation steps that repeat a read or a check that a later step does again > - This pull request removes three of these repeated steps and keeps the check that each one duplicated > - The benefit is that each run starts sooner, with no new mechanism and no change to what a run can see or write ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Run preparation (`task.prepare`). On a hosted test deployment it takes about 2.8 to 3.6 s. Skills preparation has a P50 of 275 ms (1,161 ms on a deployment with more skills and projects). `heartbeat.prepare.run_output` takes 386 to 724 ms. **Subsystem affected** Run logs in object storage (`object-byte-journal`, `object-run-log-store`) and runtime skill delivery (`company-skills`, `skill-execution-content`). **Current behavior** - An object journal claim is preceded by a head read. Its only use is to give the current owner to `claim()`. `claim()` then reads the head again, and it rejects the claim only when the two reads differ. The run log, provider trace capture, and run evidence migration all do this. - Run log `begin` reads the source-prefix proof object for every claim. For a new run log, no proof can exist, so the read always returns "missing". - Each delivered skill version calls `withVersion`, which authorizes the skill again for the run's actor. The skill row was read with the same actor's visibility condition in the same call. With an agent actor this repeats the company source and project permission reads once per version. **Proposed behavior** - `claim()` reads the head once. It still refuses a deleted journal. The conditional head write still rejects any change after that read, and a stale writer is still fenced. - `begin` does not read a proof for a first claim (generation 1). A resumed log still reads and validates its proof, so a changed or malformed proof still fails closed. - Runtime skill delivery authorizes each skill once, when it reads the selected rows. Other callers of `withVersion` keep their own check. **Reason and benefit** Each removed step protects nothing that a later step does not protect again: - Head read: the claim builds on its own head read, and the conditional write enforces it. - Proof read: a proof is written only by a writer that holds this log's head. The journal never removes a head (deletion leaves a tombstone that `claim()` refuses). So a first claim cannot find a proof. - Skill check: every caller of `materializeVersionSnapshot` passes a row that it read through the same actor's visibility condition (`readFullSkillRows`, `getById`, `listFull`). Expected saving per run: two object-storage GETs on `run_output` (about 100 ms each on the trace), and the per-version visibility reads in skills preparation (4 versions per run on the test deployment, about 388 ms per version on a heavier deployment). **Breaking changes** None. `claim()` no longer takes `expectedOwner`. It is an internal API with three callers in this repository, all updated. Refs #20284 (it made run-log tail reads parallel and cached; this change covers the begin path). ## What Changed - `object-byte-journal`: remove the `expectedOwner` input and comparison from `claim()`. Remove the extra head read in its three callers (run log `begin`, provider trace capture, run evidence migration). - `object-run-log-store`: `begin` reads the source-prefix proof only when the claimed head has `generation > 1`. - `skill-execution-content`: split `withVersion` into the access check and `withReadableVersion`. `withVersion` keeps the check for its other callers. - `company-skills`: `materializeVersionSnapshot` uses `withReadableVersion`, because each of its callers already read the skill row under the actor's visibility condition. - Tests: - A new run log `begin` reads `head.json` once and reads no proof. A resumed log reads `head.json` once and reads its proof once. - Runtime skill delivery for an agent actor does no per-version source permission reads. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/object-byte-journal.test.ts src/services/object-run-log-store.test.ts src/services/object-run-log-store-tail-read.test.ts src/services/run-log-store.test.ts src/services/provider-trace-object-store.test.ts` - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/company-skills-runtime-selection.test.ts src/__tests__/company-skills-runtime-concurrency.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-skills.test.ts src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts src/__tests__/managed-skill-content.test.ts` (embedded Postgres) - `cd server && pnpm run typecheck` - Each new test fails on the base commit: the run log test sees 2 head reads and 1 proof read; the skill test sees 1 source permission read per delivered version. - Existing tests still pass for: stale-writer fencing after a takeover, a deleted journal that refuses a claim, a malformed proof that fails closed, and a denied project-scoped skill that is not delivered. - I did not run the full `pnpm test:run`. CI covers it. ## Risks - Low. Two concurrent claims of the same journal: before, the second claim failed when the first published between its two head reads. Now the later claim takes over, and the earlier writer's next append fails with a conflict. This is the same result as when the later claim starts after the first publish. Writer authority (`assertAuthority`) is unchanged. - A skill whose visibility is revoked in the moment between its row read and its materialization in the same call is still delivered for that run. This was already true for a revocation just after the old per-version check. > 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`) in 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 - [ ] 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
|
380b3d49c0 |
fix(api): make case lookup and audit history discoverable to agents (#20354)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Cases are an experimental saved record with facts, audit history and handoffs, beside the documents on their tasks > - Agents find REST operations with `search_api`, which ranks catalog entries by words in the method, path and summary > - The case read routes had generated summaries such as "GET cases events" and one generic description > - So a chat agent that searched "list company cases" or "case facts history" did not get any case read route on the first page > - In a chat eval, the agent wanted to check the case for "who changed the diagnosis", could not find it, and answered from task document revisions only > - This pull request gives the case read routes real summaries and descriptions, and tells chat agents where a task's case and its fact-change history are > - The benefit is that agents can find and cite a case's audit history when a person asks about it ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20265 (case page link guidance for chat agents). **What happened** A person asked a chat agent "Who changed the diagnosis, and what did it say before?" about a case. The agent called `search_api` with "cases list facts history" and "list company cases". The case list, task-to-case lookup and case events routes were not on the first result page. The agent said "Not found", skipped the case audit and answered from the task document revisions only. It did not mention the case fact change or link the case. **Expected behavior** An agent that searches for a company's cases, a task's case or a case's fact-change history finds the matching route on the first page. The catalog says that a `fields_changed` event records who changed the facts and when, but not the previous values. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable Cases. 2. Call `searchRunnerApi({ query: "list company cases" })`. 3. See that `GET /api/companies/{companyId}/cases` is not in the five results. The same is true for `GET /api/cases/{id}/events` with "cases list facts history". ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/experimental-api-paths.ts`: add `experimentalApiDocs` with summaries and descriptions for the case list, task-to-case lookup, case read, case events and case document revision routes. - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: use those summaries and descriptions when present. Other experimental routes keep the generated summary. The experimental notice stays in every description. - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: the Cases chat directive now names `GET /api/issues/{issueId}/cases` to find a task's case and `GET /api/cases/{id}/events` for who changed its facts. - `server/src/__tests__/case-history-api-discovery.test.ts`: regression test with the queries from the failed run, and a check on the directive. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/case-history-api-discovery.test.ts` fails on master (2 failures) and passes with this change. - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/skill-import-discovery.test.ts src/__tests__/primary-agent-guidance.test.ts`: 2148 tests pass. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server` reports no errors in the changed files. - A live chat eval (`cases.case-history`) runs on a branch with this commit. ## Risks - Low risk. The change edits catalog text and chat guidance only. Route behavior and authorization do not change. - Search ranking changes for queries that use these words. Case routes now rank higher for case queries. ## 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
|
1baac27888 |
feat(server): chat bootstrap reads for instant task opens (#20355)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People open tasks from the task list to see the latest messages and to reply to an agent > - Before the task chat shows its first frame, it waits for about ten separate reads: the issue, recent comments, comment input facts, recent activity, recent runs, interactions, attachments, live runs and the active run > - On a busy instance each read waits for the database, and the slowest read decides when the chat appears. A cold open takes 1.5–4 s on staging > - This pull request adds one read that returns all of that data for up to ten tasks, in the same JSON shapes as the existing endpoints, plus a single-task form > - The benefit is that the task list can preload its top tasks, and a cold open needs one round trip instead of about ten. The UI change is in the stacked pull request ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** A task open waits for about ten reads. With the database under load, these reads queue, and a cold open takes seconds. The list cannot preload a task cheaply, because each task costs about ten requests. **Proposed solution** `GET /api/companies/:companyId/issues/chat-bootstrap?ids=` returns the first-frame data for up to 10 tasks. `GET /api/issues/:ref/chat-bootstrap` returns it for one task. Each field equals the matching single endpoint's JSON exactly. **Alternatives considered** - Prefetch the existing endpoints for each list row. For 30 rows this sends about 210 requests to a database that is already the bottleneck. - A new projection with different shapes. This would duplicate client merge logic, and freshness rules could drift. **Roadmap alignment** This is part of the task-loading performance plan in #20276. It follows #20277, #20284 and #20286. ## What Changed - `packages/shared`: - `ISSUE_CHAT_BOOTSTRAP_MAX_IDS` (10). - `issueChatBootstrapQuerySchema`: UUIDs or identifiers, normalized, deduplicated and strict. - The `IssueChatBootstrap` and `IssueChatBootstrapItem` types. - New `server/src/services/issue-chat-bootstrap.ts`: - Resolves the refs inside the company and applies the `issue:read` decision to each task. - Reads the tasks with a concurrency of 2, and returns them in request order. - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: - The core issue read and the recent-comments read are now shared helpers, so the bootstrap and the single endpoints use the same code. The core view keeps its Server-Timing header. - Adds the batch route and the single-task route. - Excludes the single-task route from the issue ETag middleware, so a fetch without validators always gets a 200 with `Cache-Control: private, no-store`. - New `server/src/services/issue-run-presence.ts`: - The live-runs and active-run payload builders, moved from `agents.ts` without change. - The existing routes call them, and their behavior is unchanged. - `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: entries for both routes. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-chat-bootstrap-routes.test.ts` passes 17 tests. They run on embedded Postgres with privacy enforcement on. They cover: - Each field deep-equals its single endpoint's JSON, for an ordinary task and for a conversation task. - The single-task route equals the batch item, by UUID and by identifier. It is never answered with a 304. - Items keep the request order, with UUIDs and identifiers mixed. - Private, other-company, missing and unknown tasks are omitted, and none of their data appears. The single-task route returns 404 for them. - Malformed, extra or repeated parameters return 400. More than 10 ids also return 400. - A task-bridge key gets 403. - A 10-task request writes nothing: no inserts, updates or deletes, and no activity-log or comment changes. - The issue, agent, activity, live-run, cold-open, summaries, ETag and OpenAPI route suites pass: 56 files, 1,771 tests. - `cd server && pnpm typecheck` passes. - Query cost, local embedded Postgres, one 10-task request: about 49 SQL statements per task, 55–130 ms in total. A test fails if it goes above 60 per task. ## Risks - **Database load:** the stacked UI preloads up to 30 tasks, about 1,500 statements at idle time. This is the same work as opening those tasks, but it is done before the person clicks. The work runs in sequential requests of 10, with 2 tasks at a time. Most of the cost is existing run decoration. Live runs and the active run decorate the same running run, so that work runs twice. Sharing it is a follow-up. - **Stricter access:** live runs and the active run now apply the `issue:read` policy inside this endpoint. The existing routes keep their company-only check. - Hidden tasks are returned, as `GET /issues/:id` returns them. - No migration and no persisted-state change. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used in Claude Code with tool use (shell, browser automation, file editing, subagents). ## 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
|
653ab8b18f |
fix(chat): answer "my inbox" from the person's Mine list (#20334)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agent Chat lets a person ask an agent about their own work, such as
"what in my inbox needs my attention?"
> - Agents find API routes through the agent API catalog, which is built
from the OpenAPI registry
> - The catalog described `GET /api/agents/me/inbox/mine` as the current
agent's assigned items and listed no `userId` parameter. The skill
reference for the route is keyed with `?userId={}`, so it never attached
to the catalog entry
> - A chat agent called the route without `userId`, got 400, and then
answered from an unscoped company task search. It named company work
that is not in the person's inbox and did not link the person's Mine
list
> - This pull request documents the route as the person's Mine list with
a required `userId`, and adds one chat guidance paragraph for inbox
questions
> - The benefit is that inbox answers use the person's own task scope
and link their Mine list
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
A person asked a CEO chat agent: "What in my inbox needs my attention
today?" The agent called `GET /api/agents/me/inbox/mine` without
`userId` and got 400. Then it listed every company task, including an
unrelated agent-created maintenance task. It said the person's inbox was
board-only and did not link the Mine list.
**Expected behavior**
The agent reads the person's Mine list with `GET
/api/agents/me/inbox/mine?userId=<person>`. It answers from those tasks
only, links each task it cites, and links the Mine list at
`/<prefix>/inbox/mine`. If the read fails, it says so and links Mine.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. As a board user, participate in some tasks. Let an agent create an
unrelated task in the same company.
2. In Agent Chat with the CEO, ask "What in my inbox needs my attention
today?"
3. The agent calls the Mine route without `userId` (400) and lists all
company tasks.
## What Changed
- `server/src/routes/openapi.ts`: `GET /api/agents/me/inbox/mine` now
has a summary and description that say it is a person's Mine list, not
the agent's own queue. It documents the required `userId` query
parameter and the optional `status` parameter, and the 400 response.
- `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: one chat guidance
paragraph. For inbox questions, read the Mine route with the
`authorUserId` of the person's message, answer from those tasks only,
and link `[Mine](/<prefix>/inbox/mine)` (it opens the Mine view in every
layout). If the read fails, say so and link Mine.
- Regression tests in `openapi-routes.test.ts` and
`agent-conversations.test.ts`.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-list.test.ts` (in `server/`): 107 passed. The
two new tests fail without the source change.
- `npx vitest run src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts`: 2075
passed.
- Live chat eval `inbox-search.show-my-work` on the eval candidate with
this commit: see the comment below for the run result.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change is catalog text, one query schema in the OpenAPI
document, and one chat guidance paragraph. The route behavior does not
change.
- The chat prompt grows by about 500 characters.
## 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>
|
||
|
Devin FoleyandClaude Opus 5.5
|
90ec0b9673 |
fix(sentry): report a reviewed chat setup wait only after its retry decision (#20205)
A reviewed chat attestation that exhausts its short lock or delivery wait fails setup with reviewed_chat_execution_binding_not_ready, and the bounded retry then owns recovery. The failed-status write sent the Sentry report before the retry was scheduled, so a wait that the retry recovered still created an unexpected-failure event. The setup path now marks that write as pending and reports once after the retry decision. A scheduled retry keeps the failure local; an exhausted, unscheduled or failed retry decision still reports. Other setup failures keep their report on the failed-status write. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
7f55323abb |
fix(recovery): end a remote workspace epoch whose writer died during preparation (#20346)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A task with a remote workspace prepares that workspace before the
run selects its runtime, and preparation marks the workspace epoch dirty
with the run as its writer
> - If the server is killed during preparation, the run never selected a
runtime and never started provider work, but the dirty epoch remains
> - Failed-workspace preservation, the path that resolves a dead
writer's dirty epoch, applies to native runs only, so nothing owned this
epoch
> - The dirty epoch kept the dead run's sandbox lease as a pending
export and held the workspace against the task's retry, so the task
never recovered
> - This pull request lets the ownership reconciler end such an epoch at
the last committed save
> - The benefit is that a restart during workspace preparation no longer
wedges the task
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
In a restart-chaos wave on Daytona (a remote workspace that clones a
real repository), the controller was killed while each run's first
workspace save was in flight. That save is now settled by #20326. Each
run ended `process_lost` with a bounded retry, and both runs were still
in `execution_stage: preparing` with `runtime_mode_resolved_at: null`.
The workspace authority stayed `dirty: true`, `snapshotId: null`, with
the dead run as writer. The dead run's environment lease was proven
owner-gone but was refused by its settle as `workspace_export_pending`,
and the reconciler reported `I2_settled` violations. The retries stayed
`queued` until the test harness deleted the environment 21 minutes
later. Then they failed `remote_workspace_execution_required`, because
the environment was gone.
**Expected behavior**
When a writer dies before runtime selection, its unsaved files are only
the restored source and preparation output, because no agent turn ran.
Recovery must end that epoch at the last committed save, so the lease
settles and the retry restores the workspace into a new directory. A
writer that reached runtime selection must keep its existing recovery.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a task whose agent uses Paperclip Runner with a remote sandbox
workspace.
2. Kill the server while the run is still preparing the workspace (for
example during its first save).
3. After the restart, the run ends `process_lost` and its retry is
queued, but the workspace stays dirty and owned by the dead run, the
lease stays active, and the retry never starts.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
8a6b082274 |
fix(api): send call_api mutations once when responseText asks only for the first window (#20344)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native agents use the `call_api` fallback tool for API operations that have no dedicated tool. > - `responseText` is an optional `call_api` argument. It returns a bounded text window of a GET response. > - The server rejects every `responseText` on a mutation, also a first-window request that cannot repeat the mutation. > - A native agent attached `responseText` to a company rename PATCH. It got the same 400 on each retry, and no call succeeded. > - The same call also had no `body`. A PATCH without a body changes nothing, but the route returns 200. With the first rejection removed, the agent could read that 200 as a completed rename. > - This pull request sends a mutation once when `responseText` asks only for the first window, and it rejects a PATCH without a body before dispatch. > - The benefit is that a valid mutation goes through on the first call, a later-page request still cannot repeat a mutation, and an empty PATCH cannot look like a successful update. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18105. That open pull request keeps the 400 for all mutation `responseText` values and corrects its message. This pull request changes the same check. It accepts a first-window request and keeps a corrected 400 for a later page. Whichever pull request merges second must resolve this line. **What happened** A chat agent (OpenCode, `deepseek-v4.1-flash`) tried to rename its company with `call_api`. We recovered the exact arguments from the payload digest in the run events: `operationId: "PATCH /api/companies/{companyId}"`, `pathParams.companyId`, `query: {}` and `responseText: { limitBytes: 8192 }`. There was no `body`. The OpenCode MCP bridge validates the arguments with Ajv without `useDefaults`, and `8192` is not a default in any schema. Thus the model, not the bridge, sent `responseText`. The server returned "responseText requires a GET operation". The agent sent the identical call 10 more times and one identical branding PATCH. No call succeeded. A second chat case in the same cohort sent `responseText` on `POST /api/issues/{id}/inbox-archive` three times before it recovered. **Expected behavior** `responseText` with no offset or offset 0 changes only how the response is shown. The mutation must run once and return its response on the normal inline or saved-artifact path. A later page (`offsetBytes > 0`) must still fail before dispatch, because it would repeat the mutation. A PATCH without a body must fail before dispatch with a message that names `body`, the allowed fields and the received argument keys. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Call `executeRunnerApi` with `PATCH /api/companies/{companyId}`, a body, and `responseText: { limitBytes: 8192 }`. 2. Before this change: a 400, and no HTTP request. After: one PATCH with the body, and the normal response. 3. Call it with no body. Before: the request is sent and the route returns 200 with no change. After: a 400 that names `body`, and no HTTP request. ## What Changed - `validateRunnerApiCall`: for a non-GET operation, drop a first-window `responseText` (no offset or offset 0) and continue. A later page still returns 400 with "This request was not sent" and the reason. - New `assertRunnerApiDispatchable`: reject a new PATCH with a required request body when `body` and `files` are both absent. The message lists up to 12 allowed fields and the received argument keys. `call_api` runs it inside its receipt reservation, after saved and inherited receipts are read and before it writes a pending receipt, so a rejected call leaves no receipt. `executeRunnerApi` also runs it for direct callers. Recovery and receipt replay use only `validateRunnerApiCall`, so a body-less PATCH that an older server completed still returns its saved result. - Tests: first-window `responseText` on a PATCH dispatches once with the body (three window shapes). A later page is rejected with no dispatch. A body-less PATCH is rejected with no dispatch, and `body: {}` is still accepted. The catalog-wide dispatch tests now send `body: {}` for PATCH operations with a required body. ## Verification - Red: the 5 new or changed cases failed on `origin/master` (`runner-api.test.ts`). - Green: `npx vitest run src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/runner-tool-results.test.ts` passed (2,087 tests). `tests/runner-e2e/api-response-reading.test.ts` passed (14 tests). - `tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json`: no new errors. The error count is the same before and after this change; the remaining errors come from packages that are not built in this worktree. - Upgrade safety and receipts: a new integration test seeds a completed receipt for a body-less PATCH. `recover()` and a same-callId `execute()` return the saved result. A new body-less PATCH is rejected twice with the same error, writes no receipt and sends no HTTP request, and the corrected PATCH with that callId then succeeds. The test failed with the rule in `validateRunnerApiCall`, and again with the rule after the reservation; it passes now. `runner-api.integration.test.ts`, `runner-api.test.ts` and `native-case-tools.integration.test.ts` pass (2,164 passed, 2 skipped). - One paid chat eval run (GitHub Actions run 42680925312) with the first commit cherry-picked onto the eval branch: `companies.rename-company` passed. The agent sent one correct PATCH with a body, attributed to the agent. That run did not send `responseText`, so it does not exercise the changed path; the unit tests cover it. ## Risks - Behavior change: a mutation with a first-window `responseText` now runs. Before, it failed. The response comes back on the normal path (inline up to 24 KiB, else a saved artifact), not as a text window. - Behavior change: a caller that sent a PATCH with no body to a route with a required body now gets a 400. Such a call changed nothing before. POST, PUT and DELETE are not changed, because some of them have useful empty bodies. - No route, permission or company check 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> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
93f7c3b5d3 |
fix(tasks): keep a budget-held Retry's failure visible and refresh the open task (#20338)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - When a task's automatic recovery stops, the person's Retry rechecks
the task's gates. If a gate refuses, for example a budget hard stop, the
Retry is saved and starts by itself once the gate allows it
> - After a person pressed Retry under a budget hold, the task page went
blank: no failure, no notice and no Retry. A person had no way to see
why nothing started
> - Two gaps caused it. The task notice drew only system-owned states,
and a budget hold presents as a person-owned state with no card of its
own. Also, admission saved the wait reason without publishing anything
that an open page listens to
> - This pull request keeps the failure visible and names the budget
wait, and it refreshes an open task when admission records why a Retry
waits
> - The benefit is that "failure remains visible if the new attempt
cannot start" holds without the person reloading the page
> - These two commits were pushed to #20306 after it was squash-merged,
so they are not on master
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #20306 (merged without these two commits) and #20270.
**What happened?**
In the chat eval
`chat-features.runner-opencode.local.recovery.retry-exhausted`, a person
pressed Retry on a task whose native recovery was exhausted while the
agent's budget was held. The Retry was accepted (`POST
/api/issues/{id}/retry` returned 202). The task page then stayed blank
for more than 60 seconds on the open page.
**Expected behavior**
The task keeps the failure visible and says that it is waiting for the
budget. Once the budget allows new work, the saved Retry starts once by
itself.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Let a task's run fail, and put the assignee over a budget hard stop.
2. Open the task and press Retry.
3. The page shows nothing about the failure or the wait.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
16e9157577 |
fix(api): publish agent-grant access operations as board_or_agent in the API catalog (#20349)
## 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 decide which operations they may call. The `x-paperclip-authorization` actor tells them who performs each operation. > - The invite, join-request and member-list routes admit agents that hold the matching company grant (`users:invite`, `joins:approve`, `users:manage_permissions`). > - The catalog still listed these operations as board-only. > - In a chat eval, a CEO agent with `users:invite` read `actor: "board"` on `POST /invites`, treated it as a final boundary, and told the person it could not invite anyone. > - This pull request publishes those operations as `board_or_agent` and names the grant each needs. It also names the Members page on member edits, which stay board-only. > - The benefit is that a granted agent uses the permission the board gave it, and agents without the grant still get a 403. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A board granted the CEO agent `users:invite` with `PATCH /api/agents/:id/permission-grants`. The person asked in chat: "Invite alex@example.test to join this company." The agent searched the API catalog. It found `POST /api/companies/{companyId}/invites` with `x-paperclip-authorization: { actor: "board" }`. It concluded that invites are board-only and did not try the call. The route itself accepts agents with `users:invite`. **Expected behavior** The catalog shows `board_or_agent` for operations whose route accepts an agent with a company grant. The description names the grant. The agent creates the invite and returns the join link. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Grant an agent `users:invite`. 2. Read `GET /api/openapi.json` and find `POST /api/companies/{companyId}/invites`. 3. See `x-paperclip-authorization: { actor: "board" }`, although `assertCompanyPermission` admits the agent. **Paperclip version or commit** Master at the merge base of this branch. **Deployment mode** Any. Found in the runner full-stack chat eval `access.invite-teammate`. ## What Changed - Remove six operations from `BOARD_ONLY_OPERATIONS`: `POST`/`GET /companies/{companyId}/invites`, `GET /join-requests`, `POST /join-requests/{requestId}/approve` and `/reject`, and `GET /members`. Their routes use `assertCompanyPermission`, which admits agents with the grant. - Add descriptions that name the grant for each operation. The invite description also says it returns a shareable `inviteUrl` (no email field), and that membership starts only after acceptance. - Member edits (`PATCH /members/{memberId}`, `/role-and-grants`, `/permissions` and `POST /archive`) stay board-only. The route guard requires board access, and a test keeps the catalog in line with that guard. - Describe those member edits as board-only even for agents holding `users:manage_permissions`, and name the Members page (`/<prefix>/company/settings/members`) where a person makes the change. The member list description says the same. An agent then links the page instead of searching for an agent route. - Add a regression test in `openapi-routes.test.ts`. ## Verification - `cd server && node ../node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run --config vitest.config.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — 43 passed. The new test also checks that the Members page is named. With master's `openapi.ts`, the new test fails (`expected { actor: 'board' } to deeply equal { actor: 'board_or_agent' }`). - `src/services/native-runtime/runner-api.test.ts` — 2075 passed. ## Risks - Low risk. This changes catalog metadata only. Route guards do not change. An agent without the grant still gets 403. - Agents with these grants will now attempt these operations instead of stopping. That is the intended behavior of the grant. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c67909cb0f |
fix: keep tool approvals valid through OAuth refresh and delayed review (#20340)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage agent work and approve app actions. > - An approval must bind the action that the person reviewed. > - OAuth access tokens can expire while that person is away. > - The old target snapshot treated each token refresh as a new authorization. It also imposed a one-hour review deadline. > - This pull request separates token renewal from authorization identity and keeps the human decision durable. > - Current access, the reviewed arguments, meaningful target changes, task closure, and execution receipts still control dispatch. > - People can approve later without repeating a decision after routine connection maintenance. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A pending app action returned `approved_tool_target_changed` after its OAuth tokens refreshed. The tool and connection settings were unchanged. The same card also expired after one hour. A sign-in problem could discard an accepted decision before provider dispatch. **Expected behavior** The original card remains reviewable after routine OAuth refresh and a server restart. A later approval runs the exact reviewed action once. A connection repair preserves the decision while Paperclip verifies the same authorization. Meaningful changes require a new review. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Connect an OAuth MCP app and configure an action to require approval. 2. Request the action, then refresh its access and refresh tokens before approving. 3. Approve the original card. Before this change, it returns HTTP 409 even when the authorization is unchanged. 4. Wait more than one hour. Before this change, the card expires without a task-specific deadline. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced from master at `76254ead2229`. The final branch is rebased onto current master. ## What Changed - Add versioned approval target comparison. New snapshots bind credential identity epochs, consent, permissions, ownership, connection configuration, tool contracts, and credential references. Authenticated OAuth refresh preserves identity. Manual credential replacement does not. - Remove the implicit one-hour deadline from ordinary app action reviews. Keep explicit deadlines and terminal-task expiry. Synchronize the nullable interaction deadline in shared contracts and UI. - Keep accepted, undispatched actions when sign-in is required. Show a saved-approval repair state. Resume on committed connection changes after target and access revalidation, without an idle retry loop. - Preserve the existing execution claim, result receipt, and uncertain-outcome no-replay rules. - Explain meaningful target changes without inviting the person to retry the stale card. - Add a production task-thread Storybook example and document compatibility and recovery behavior. ## Verification - Red: production-refresher invalid-grant handling and formal-approval withdrawal during a sign-in wait also reproduced as failing regressions before their fixes. - Red: before implementation, the local OAuth HTTP fixture failed for both public and confidential clients with `approved_tool_target_changed` after token refresh. - Green: the extended fixture passes for public and confidential clients with personal and shared grants. It covers actual local HTTP token exchanges, multiple refreshes, a rebuilt gateway, an ended originating run, approval after 25 hours, duplicate approval, preserved sharing arguments, sign-in waiting, and event-driven repair. The gateways use the production OAuth refresher; an invalid refresh preserves the accepted decision before provider dispatch. Omitted-scope responses cover equivalent scope-reporting changes. The provider is an isolated local fixture, not a deployed Notebook service. - Negative controls refuse changed consent, scopes, tool definition, destination, and manual credential replacement before provider execution. - Existing gateway service, connected-tool acceptance, secret owner, secret service, unsigned-review queue, and connection-health suites passed. Explicit-deadline fixtures still prove expiry behavior, including deadlines on accepted sign-in waits. A withdrawn formal approval cancels a waiting action before connection recovery. - Approval card, task-chat, error-copy and target-comparison tests passed. Server and UI typechecks passed. Token gates and Storybook catalog checks passed. - Inspected the new saved-approval repair card in local Storybook using the production task thread. It shows a reconnect link and no second approval button or false running state. - `pnpm verify --explain` returned exit 2 and requested broad CI coverage. [Full CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42677855507) passed on `eb4f1c7caa9ee6e802c314ffc5eadec475a5de0c`, including build, typecheck/release registry, general and serialized tests, and all eight browser shards. - Greptile reviewed the same final head at 5/5. Both findings from the first review are fixed and their threads resolved; no open follow-ups remain. ## Risks - No database migration is needed. The new comparison reuses the vault identity epoch. Only authenticated OAuth refresh code can preserve that epoch; HTTP credential-write schemas cannot select that behavior. - Earlier signed requests keep their original exact-version checks and saved deadlines. Already-expired cards are not revived. A historical card whose credentials already changed needs a fresh review. - A new consent, account, permission set, destination, or manually replaced credential must not inherit the old authorization. Reconnection continues automatically only when revalidation proves the same saved authorization. - The interaction enrichment now permits a null deadline. Existing string deadlines remain valid. The web client and shared validator change together. - This PR does not deploy to staging or perform a live Notebook publication. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository tools, code execution, and browser inspection. The runtime does not expose the exact model ID, context-window limit, or reasoning-mode label; those values are not asserted. ## 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
|
0e325e8d52 |
fix(runner): settle saved handoffs after verified shutdown (#20336)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - An agent can save a question or approval handoff before its provider stops. > - A missing provider terminal notification does not prove that the saved work failed. > - Runner already verifies provider exit, event drain, tool settlement and suspension. > - This change uses that proof to settle the same saved handoff. > - Unproven shutdown holds continuation and explains that the work is saved. > - Recovery must never repeat the completed work or allow overlapping execution. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20330. That PR extends the Codex terminal drain window. This change handles the separate case where no terminal arrives but the owned shutdown can prove stopped execution. **What happened?** A native run saved a human handoff, accepted cancellation, and later stopped its provider. The missing terminal notification still made the attempt fail and show “Couldn’t finish this attempt.” **Expected behavior** Keep the saved handoff. Accept its yielded result after either an authoritative provider terminal or verified shutdown of the exact execution. If shutdown remains uncertain, retain the handoff and explain the hold without offering a duplicate Retry. **Steps to reproduce** Save a governed wait, acknowledge interruption, and omit the provider terminal. The new regression uses the real Runner binary and a controlled Codex process. The old runtime rejects the handoff instead of asking the existing shutdown owner to settle it. **Deployment mode** Native Runner with Codex. Local verification used macOS arm64 and Node 26.4.0. Hosted sandbox recovery has not been qualified. ## What Changed - Add an optional driver shutdown-settlement operation. Runner returns proof only after its existing stop, drain, tool settlement and suspension barrier passes. - Bind the receipt to the run, normalized session and turn. Persist it with the saved wait and validate it during recovery. - Complete the same yielded handoff after verified shutdown. Retire the stopped session from warm reuse. Do not invent a provider terminal or complete usage. - Retain a named shutdown-pending condition under the existing bounded same-run recovery policy. Preserve actual provider failures and integrity failures. - Show saved-work shutdown guidance in task and inbox presentation. Keep genuine approvals authoritative and disable duplicate Retry. - Document the completion and restart contract. The checkpoint field is additive; older checkpoints retain the terminal-or-shutdown path. ## Verification - Red: the new runtime regression failed against the original implementation because verified shutdown was never requested. Server presentation and error-classification regressions also failed before the fix. - Red: both inbox shutdown states showed generic text before the inbox change. - Green: Runner runtime, shutdown and harness-backend suites pass 301 tests. Tests cover missing terminals, failed stop proof, wrong identity, cancellation, late proof, genuine provider failure, and restart after receipt persistence. Recovery completes once without another model turn. - Green: the native executor and task-presentation suites pass 1,371 tests. Execution projection, inbox and blocker presentation pass 125 tests. Two test-authoring mistakes were corrected: an integrity-error text expectation and an assertion for a nonexistent projection field. Their initial failures remain in local logs. - Runner TypeScript and full server layered type checks pass. Token gates and diff whitespace checks pass. - Live provider acceptance: real Runner and Codex with gpt-6.1-sol, one disposable local workspace, one tool call, and one deliberately dropped terminal notification. The saved file, bound settlement receipt, one accepted yielded result, one provider turn, confirmed provider exit and suspended Runner all passed. The tool handler and persistence port were controlled. This does not claim a full server or hosted journey. - The full browser question-and-answer cell stopped before execution because OPENAI_API_KEY was absent. No model work ran in that attempt. Hosted sandbox recovery and the full browser continuation journey remain unverified. - `pnpm verify` returned exit 2 because the execution-spec change requires broad CI. Required CI will supply that coverage; a full local repository suite was not repeated. - Review correction in `8553da244e`: a failed trailing-event write could hide a provider failure. A new regression reproduced red, then passed after all ordinary drain errors retained the named pending condition. No settlement receipt or result can be accepted after that error. The live missing-terminal check passed again on the corrected runtime. - The real PostgreSQL control-plane regression and three existing governed-wait controls pass. The new case persists one accepted yielded result, a bound shutdown receipt, and the original pending human question without a provider terminal. - First CI revision `7c2cb9b1`: test-program typecheck found a missing `PrpEvent` annotation in the new fixture. The annotation is fixed and the Runner test-program typecheck passes. Runner support also timed out in the unchanged `registered roots remain protected even when equal to genuine public static bytes` case after 30 seconds. One unchanged local diagnostic passed in 3.69 seconds overall. The hosted timeout cause remains unknown; no timeout, fixture, or assertion was weakened. [Original failed support job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42670851821/job/129346900133). - Rebased onto the merged #20330 and current recovery changes. The combined branch passes 1,402 executor/presentation tests. Both prompt and 18-second provider terminals still pass. A warm session with no terminal passes after the full 30-second drain and verified stop/suspension. Its initial overly broad assertion rejected a nonterminal turn event; the corrected assertion rejects every terminal type. The rebased CI gate was cancelled before any runner or step started; its cause is unconfirmed and it supplies no validation credit. Final revision `b49ec5a144` starts fresh CI and review. - Final-head CI attempt 1 failed before creating jobs. GitHub reports an internal server error (correlation `2c576b07-b67f-4179-a69f-74f7d99cd926`), followed by empty runner-selection outputs for the aggregate jobs. One unchanged-commit retry was requested; the initial admission failure remains recorded. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42673159868). - **Current blocker:** final head `b49ec5a144e94e41e96e2508a79bd9aec91fe45a` has a fresh 5/5 Greptile review and zero unresolved threads, but required CI is not complete. GitHub reports an active [Actions and Checks API incident](https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/tp8cghg7tlc4). Attempt 2 ran only part of the full selected graph. Build, canary, Rust, sandbox providers, admitted browser shards and other completed test jobs passed. The E2E aggregate correctly failed because `policy` and `e2e_shards` had `abandoned` results. Server shard 5/12 received a runner shutdown signal at 18:36:55 UTC and its test step was cancelled; its job still reports in progress. The shutdown cause is not established. The separate review workflow had the same pre-execution internal-error class and passed one bounded retry. No further retry was submitted during the incident. Resume with the missing/cancelled coverage after GitHub recovers; do not count the absent typecheck, Runner or support jobs as passes. [Failed coverage gate](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42673159868/job/129354318236), [interrupted server shard](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42673159868/job/129350854174). ## Risks - A missing terminal can use one additional bounded shutdown interval. Unknown shutdown still blocks continuation. - Provider terminal and usage accounting keep their separate meaning. The receipt proves stopped execution and settled tool outcomes, not model success. - Recovery rejects a foreign receipt, a later turn, an active turn with a settled receipt, and an actual failed provider terminal. - There is no database migration. Older checkpoint shapes remain readable. Drivers without this optional proof retain a named pending state. - This PR does not deploy the fix or repair an existing hosted task. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools and local code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Live test inference used gpt-6.1-sol. ## 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a67b936885 |
fix(server): redact invitation bearer paths from HTTP logs (#20343)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People join a company through an invitation link. The link carries a bearer token in its URL path. > - The HTTP logger removes query secrets and URL user information. It keeps the path. > - So invitation bearer tokens reach the HTTP log in the request URL, the log message, and the referrer header. > - PR #17848 fixed this, but it did not merge. Since then, #13742 changed the same redactor file. > - This pull request carries the #17848 commits onto current master. The original author is kept on both commits. > - The benefit is that invitation tokens do not stay in HTTP logs. The chat eval for membership management can then accept a real invitation safely. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Supersedes #17848 (same commits, rebased onto current master after #13742). **What happened?** The HTTP logger writes invitation bearer tokens to logs. A synthetic POST to `/api/invites/<token>/accept` puts the token in `req.url`, in the log message, and in the `Referer`/`Referrer` header record. **Expected behavior** Logs keep the invitation route, the method, and the HTTP status. Logs do not keep the bearer token. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Check out master. 2. Run `server/src/__tests__/logger-invitation-redaction.test.ts` from this PR. 3. The synthetic token appears in the request URL, the message, and the referrer. 12 tests fail on master. **Paperclip version or commit** Master at the merge base of this branch. **Deployment mode** Source server. The tests use a disposable local HTTP listener. They use no database and no provider. ## What Changed - Remove the bearer segment from `/api/invites/<token>/...`, `/invites/<token>/...`, and `/invite/<token>` URLs, including mounted paths and absolute URLs. - Apply the same URL policy to `referer` and `referrer` request headers. - Keep record IDs on the non-token revoke route `/invites/<inviteId>/revoke` and on company-scoped invite routes. - Add regression tests through the real HTTP logger for 202, 400 and 500 responses, with both referrer header spellings. - Original work by @cryppadotta in #17848. This PR only rebases it onto master. ## Verification - From `server`: `node ../node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run --config vitest.config.ts src/__tests__/logger-invitation-redaction.test.ts src/__tests__/redact-sensitive.test.ts src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts` — 46 passed. - With the master `logger.ts` and `redact-sensitive.ts`, the same new tests fail: 12 failed. - `http-log-aborted-response`, `cloud-principal-log` and `setup-token-session` tests pass locally. Some other HTTP-log suites could not load locally because workspace package builds were missing in this worktree. CI covers them. ## Risks - Low risk. Referrer query and fragment values are now removed from request logs, as they already are for request URLs. This removes some diagnostic detail to protect secrets. - A route that uses `/invites/<id>/...` for a non-bearer record ID, other than `revoke`, now shows `[REDACTED]` in logs for that segment. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution, used to rebase and verify. The original change was authored in #17848. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
0f71ab796e |
fix(issues): name the existing order in dependency-cycle denials (#20342)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Tasks can wait for other tasks through blocking dependencies, and the server rejects a dependency that closes a cycle > - The rejection said only "Blocking relations cannot contain cycles" > - In chat, an agent asked to "make Website wait for Design too" got this 422 while Design already waited for Website > - The agent had no sign that the existing order must stay, so it guessed a swap: it removed Design's dependency on Website and added the reverse > - This pull request makes the 422 name the existing order, say that nothing changed, and say to ask the requester which order they want > - The benefit is that agents keep the existing prerequisite and ask the person, instead of silently reversing it ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** A chat agent was asked to make Website also wait for Design. Design already waited for Website. The server correctly returned 422 "Blocking relations cannot contain cycles". The agent then removed the existing Design-waits-for-Website dependency and added Website-waits-for-Design. The person lost the existing prerequisite without being asked. **Expected behavior** The rejection keeps both saved dependency sets as they were. The agent explains the conflict with the real task names and asks the person which order they want before it changes any dependency. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create tasks Website and Design. Make Design blocked by Website. 2. PATCH Website with `blockedByIssueIds: [Design]`. 3. See that the 422 says only "Blocking relations cannot contain cycles", with no task names and no next step. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/issues.ts`: the cycle check now records the path it finds. The 422 message names the existing chain by task identifier (for example "COM-2 waits for COM-1, so COM-1 cannot also wait for COM-2"). It never includes titles, because the chain can pass through tasks the caller cannot read. Identifiers are the same fields that locked relation stubs already show. It says no dependencies changed and the existing ones are kept. It says not to remove or reverse an existing dependency, and to ask the requester which order they want. - The 422 `details` now carry `code: "blocking_cycle"`, the updated issue, the requested blocker, and the existing chain as ids and identifiers. - `server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`: a regression test checks the message and details for a direct cycle, the chain text for a two-step cycle through a task with a private title, that no title appears in the error, and that the existing dependency is unchanged. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` passes (152 tests). The new test fails on the old message. - Chat eval `task-coordination.reject-dependency-cycle` ran end to end with the first commit (run 42678089404, which named tasks by identifier and title). The agent kept Design waiting for Website and asked the person which order to keep with a question card. The saved dependency sets did not change. The second commit removes titles from the message; the rest of the text is the same. ## Risks - Low risk. The status code (422) and the first words of the message do not change. Clients that match the full old message exactly would no longer match. No code in this repository does that. - The check reads the identifiers of the issues in the chain only when it rejects a request, so the success path is unchanged. - The error can show the identifier of a task that the caller cannot read. Relation responses already show this identifier in locked stubs, so this shows no new data. ## 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
|
251c6d5c69 |
fix(recovery): settle a remote workspace save whose process died mid-save (#20326)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Native runs in remote sandboxes save the workspace as snapshot
operations (`workspace_operations`, phase `remote_workspace_snapshot`).
Each save invocation is listed in `saveWork.activeIds` while it runs
> - When a controller process is killed during a save, its invocation
stays listed and the operation stays `running`
> - Nothing recorded which process ran the invocation, so the shared
ownership reconciler could not prove the owner gone and never settled
the save
> - The task's bounded retry then waited behind that save forever
> - This pull request records the owning process for each save
invocation, and lets the reconciler settle a save whose owner is proven
gone
> - The benefit is that a restart during a save no longer wedges the
task
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
In a restart-chaos wave on Daytona with a real cloned repository, two
tasks each started their first remote snapshot save (`boundary:
initial`, epoch 1). A SIGKILL hit the controller during the save, before
any upload. Each run ended `process_lost` and got a bounded retry. The
retries stayed `queued` forever, the snapshot operations stayed
`running` with `saveWork.activeIds: [<dead invocation>]` and
`quiescedAt: null`, and the sandbox leases stayed active. The ownership
reconciler reported the saves as owner-gone but had no way to settle
them.
**Expected behavior**
After a restart, recovery must settle a remote snapshot save whose
owning process is gone. It is marked failed with provenance, so the
task's retry can continue. A save that is still running must stay
untouched.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a native task with a remote workspace (for example Daytona with a
`git_repo` project source).
2. Kill the controller (SIGKILL) while the first workspace save is in
flight, before its upload.
3. After the restart, the run ends `process_lost` and its retry is
promoted to `queued`, but the save operation stays `running` and the
retry never starts.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at
|
||
|
Dotta
|
0eacad0d0c |
fix: refresh preserved harness receipt facts without copying archives (#20322)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Volume-free deployment must preserve historical controller files before removing the old disk. > - A WEB preservation receipt binds an archive and source files to the selected session and database facts. > - Later metadata changes can make those facts stale while the preserved files and archive remain unchanged. > - The existing owner refuses every stale receipt, so preservation cannot converge. > - This pull request refreshes only facts freshness after it verifies the same source bytes, checkpoints and archive. > - Existing locks and an old-receipt digest comparison prevent a concurrent replacement from being overwritten. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19814 for WEB evidence preservation without settling remote recovery. Refs #19832 for bounded larger inventories. Related harness receipt PRs were searched; no existing change provides this guarded refresh. **What happened?** A valid WEB preservation receipt becomes stale after later run metadata changes. Its original-volume owner refuses another preservation attempt because an invalid receipt already exists. This leaves an eligibility blocker even when the source and saved archive are unchanged. **Expected behavior** The original-volume owner can refresh stale facts only after it proves every other persisted binding unchanged. It retains the prior receipt and remote recovery state. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Preserve a settled session's WEB files and controller evidence. 2. Add later run metadata so its database facts digest changes. 3. Preserve the same scope again. The previous implementation refuses at the existing-receipt check. **Paperclip version or commit** The failure was reproduced on master `12523fb677585fcd6da929f868014514a4e96e87`. This branch includes master `1b7fe33432016b3b27ccdfbf7b8944da4b40726d`. **Deployment mode** Managed Linux server with PostgreSQL and durable object storage. ## What Changed - Reuse the exact prior archive for existing WEB receipts. Recheck current source bytes, controller history, checkpoint material and archive bindings. Read back ciphertext and verify its size and hash. - Permit only database/local-observation freshness changes. Selected session, source run, controller, archive, WEB entries, and assets must still match the prior proof. Local inode and timestamp observations may change across attempts; preserved bytes, paths and modes must match. - Recheck current facts and source files under the existing finalizer, task and run fences. Accept a matching concurrent winner or require the exact previous receipt digest before replacement. - Retain the prior database and local facts digests, witness fingerprint, observation time and receipt digest in the same company-scoped activity transaction. Require those four fields to reconstruct the exact prior proof from unchanged current bindings before replacement. Normal audit redaction stays enabled. - Preserve current-key checks and archive reads on ordinary idempotent calls. Keep active-source, changed-evidence and cancellation refusals. - Document the refresh contract. No schema, saved-run format or public API change. ## Verification - Genuine RED: the new real PostgreSQL/encrypted-archive case failed at the old previous-invalid gate. - Before the audit review follow-up, the full local owner suite passed **94/94 integration cases in 50.01 seconds**. It covers same-archive refresh with no PUT, audit history, current-key failures, unreadable archives, cancellation, changed files, replaced volume, active sources, matching concurrent winners and conflicting receipt replacement. - The cases also cover a source becoming active during an idempotent readback. Earlier 91- and 93-case runs preceded these final review guards and are not the final result. - Server typecheck, module boundaries and diff checks passed on the final production/test bytes before the clean master merge. Required CI supplies final-head breadth. Four narrow post-merge refresh/current-key/idempotent regressions passed in 5.70 seconds on `82e270f29fff98442c4184b96082f72f18a88721`. - The fixtures use a real disposable PostgreSQL database and actual local encrypted archives/storage. Controlled faults affect the stated storage or concurrency boundary. They do not prove a hosted refresh or archive plaintext cold restore. - The existing integration file now exceeds 1,000 lines. Keeping these cases with its private original-volume, controller, archive and PostgreSQL fixture avoids duplicating that setup. - Initial worktree preflight stalled on the global package-manager wrapper. Preflight completed with the existing pinned toolchain. No setup failure is counted as a product test pass. - Review found that activity redaction could change a full prior-receipt copy. A new regression enabled the real username censor and reproduced that mismatch. The fix stores only the four changed scalar fields and their original proof digest; a prepublication canonical reconstruction guard rejects dropped or unknown fields. - On the audit follow-up, 16 affected real PostgreSQL cases passed in 11.98 seconds; 80 unchanged cases were intentionally skipped. They include real redaction with a username-containing WEB path, reconstruction across two refreshes, unknown prior fields, CAS, active sources, current-key failures, unavailable archives and cancellation. Final server typecheck and boundaries passed. This was an intermediate revision; the final-head results appear below. - A second review found that comparing old inode/timestamp observations also broke ordinary valid retries. Three real cases reproduced valid-receipt touch/inode failures and stale-facts touch failure. The fix permits metadata freshness changes across attempts while keeping exact byte/path/mode/checkpoint/archive coverage and the existing locked within-attempt metadata fence. - Final local owner suite on the metadata follow-up: **102/102 integration cases passed in 44.04 seconds**, including valid touch/new-inode retries, stale refresh with the same archive and no PUT, four-scalar audit reconstruction, changed bytes/mode/entries, and a touch during archive readback that must refuse. Server typecheck, module boundaries and diff checks passed. The final-head CI and review results appear below. - Final head `c81475c927d0862dcb8d2c2356dc41ab4a27e63f`: [PR workflow attempt 5](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42667287803/attempts/5) completed successfully at 19:24:28 UTC on 2026-11-09. All 51 jobs are accounted for: 49 passed and 2 were skipped. The actual [final ci / verify](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42667287803/job/129382061558) and [E2E aggregate](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42667287803/job/129381486342) passed. Typecheck, build and the selected test lanes passed. The exact-head rollup is successful with no pending or failed checks. - Attempt 5 resolved both trusted workflows to `3a2f71db31aa99633610dc241f55f34ac65124de`, after #20339 merged. Its routing gate passed and real jobs started. This verifies successful startup and completion of this rerun; it does not exercise the empty-runner fallback because routing succeeded. - Earlier CI failures on `82e270f29fff98442c4184b96082f72f18a88721` and attempts 1–4 of this final-head workflow remain nonpasses. Attempt 1 had interrupted leaf jobs and failed aggregates. Attempts 2 and 3 ended in workflow failure without a final verify job. Attempt 4 failed startup with zero jobs and empty-runner errors. Those failures are not counted as passes or labeled unrelated. - [Greptile](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20322#issuecomment-6746395090) and [Ponytail](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20322#issuecomment-6746327827) reviewed the unchanged final head at **5/5**. Both historical review threads are resolved; no inline thread remains open. - Hosted application to an actual stale scope remains pending normal release delivery. ## Risks - Refresh must not bless different preservation evidence. The unchanged-binding checks, fresh file and checkpoint proof, exact archive reuse, source capability and locked receipt comparison remain mandatory. - A fresh capability has a new witness fingerprint and expiry. The audit retains the old fingerprint, database/local facts digests and observation time. All unchanged proof bindings remain on the current receipt. Their canonical reconstruction must match the old digest. The new capability is validated at entry and publication. - Readback verifies ciphertext size/hash and current-key checkpoint material. This change does not claim a new archive GCM/plaintext restore. - Archive identity and rows remain unchanged, so retention ownership does not change. Failed refreshes retain the previous receipt, original files and unresolved remote recovery obligations. - Older receipt shapes are not rewritten automatically. Normal validation and named preservation refusals remain in force. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`), with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. Context-window size is not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3a2f71db31 |
fix(ci): handle missing runner output and await import fixture readiness (#20339)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - CI checks must report real result failures after their setup phase. > - Required summaries must run even when the routing gate has no runner output. > - Process-recovery tests must start their checkpoint deadline after the child loads its modules. > - An empty runner prevents summaries from starting. Slow child startup can consume the checkpoint deadline. > - This pull request adds a fallback for the two summaries and a ready signal for the recovery fixture. > - Existing routing, checkpoint, key and recovery assertions remain in place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20322. Related open PRs #12512 and #12513 propose a broader runner contract and caller activation. This change does not adopt that contract or change normal routing. No current repair for an empty aggregate runner was found. **What happened?** The PR workflow can fail before starting any jobs when the routing gate has no runner output. GitHub reports an empty `runs-on` value for the `verify` and `e2e` summary jobs. Their `always()` conditions make this path possible when a dependency cannot run. A real workflow rerun showed both errors at lines 801 and 1784 of the trusted workflow. The first run of this PR also failed two process-recovery cases with no saved child checkpoints. The fixture starts its 15-second checkpoint poll before a new Node process imports the server modules. A controlled 16-second pre-import delay reproduces the same zero-checkpoint assertion. That evidence proves a deadline-boundary defect. The original CI run has no phase events, so it does not prove which stage caused those two CI failures. **Expected behavior** The summaries can start on `ubuntu-latest` when routing has no runner output. They must still fail when routing or required work did not succeed. The process fixture waits for a bounded child-ready signal before its unchanged checkpoint deadline. It must still prove checkpoint reuse, process termination and refusal under a changed master key. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start or rerun PR CI with no runner output from the routing gate. 2. Let the two `always()` summary jobs evaluate their runner expressions. 3. Observe that the previous expressions produce an empty value and GitHub refuses the jobs. 4. For the fixture defect, temporarily delay the child before imports for 16 seconds. The previous fixture fails its 15-second checkpoint poll before the child is ready. The updated fixture passes with the same delay. The temporary delay is excluded from this PR. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced with the workflow from `f56b097fbd25607b3b84e418085ab42c2cbb758d`. The caller and both reusable workflow files are byte-identical between that revision and the affected PR head. This fix is based on current master `4a349ea44754f0b1fb8e5e04dc6cdcb05d1c3396`. **Deployment mode** GitHub Actions PR CI. ## What Changed - Add `ubuntu-latest` as the fallback only for `verify` and `e2e` when the routing runner is empty. - Extend the existing workflow contract test to require a usable fallback and execute each real summary script with a failed, cancelled or skipped gate and absent routing outputs. - Wait up to 30 seconds for the recovery child to finish imports and construct storage before starting the existing 15-second checkpoint poll. Keep the 30-second work abort, 60-second test timeout, and every kill, key, state and proof assertion. - Preserve normal runner selection, task selection, permissions and all result assertions. No production code, public command or product contract changes. ## Verification - The new local workflow contract failed before the two runner-expression changes. The existing summary scripts rejected failed routing while the test identified the missing fallback. - **148 focused tests passed** across CI planning, routing and E2E sharding in 16.00 seconds. These execute the actual summary Node scripts and preserve failure and cancellation checks. - `actionlint -oneline -shellcheck= -pyflakes=` passed for the trusted workflow, routing workflow and caller. `git diff --check` passed. - The canonical worktree preflight completed with the pinned toolchain and shared build cache. - This test does not implement a GitHub expression evaluator. The real GitHub startup error establishes the absent-output failure; the source contract and actionlint validate the proposed expression. Hosted execution of this fallback remains to be verified after the trusted workflow reaches master. - The unchanged two process cases passed locally before the fixture change: 2 passed in 31.06 seconds. A controlled 16-second startup delay then reproduced the zero-checkpoint failure in 21.81 seconds. The ready handshake passed with the same delay in 37.11 seconds. The temporary delay and phase logging were removed. These are measured test durations, not a measurement of the original CI child startup. - The final full nested-verification fixture passed: **38/38 cases in 132.30 seconds**, with disposable local PostgreSQL. This includes partial checkpoint reuse, changed-key refusal and all existing recovery controls. - Fresh final head `da35ea034bdee603c021c4eba5b0f78ee6ef52d9`: the [full PR workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42678538191), [final ci / verify](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42678538191/job/129374227690) and [incremental qualification](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42678537930) passed. The [previously failing server lane](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42678538191/job/129366881302) passed. The final rollup has 61 successful checks, 6 expected skips, 2 neutral checks and no pending checks or failures. Snyk passed. - [Greptile](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20339#issuecomment-6748154727) and [Ponytail](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20339#issuecomment-6748242241) both reviewed that exact final head at 5/5. There are no inline review threads. Ponytail permits retaining the source check with actionlint, which is the validation used here. - The [first workflow run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42674612619) failed the two cases described above; it is not counted as a pass. No CI retry was used to obtain the final result. CI uses the merged trusted workflow; its policy tests validate this proposed source file. ## Risks - A routing failure now produces a normal failed summary instead of an invalid runner expression. The unchanged assertions require successful routing, policy, valid scope and selected suite results. - Only lightweight summary jobs can fall back to GitHub-hosted capacity. Heavy jobs and authorization rules retain their existing route. - The new readiness allowance is bounded. A child that does not become ready, fails its work deadline, or cannot produce the expected checkpoint still fails. The original CI failure cause remains unproved beyond the observed zero-checkpoint assertions. - The fallback assertion is an exact source contract. A formatting change can require an assertion update. The separate actionlint check validates expression syntax; the text check does not emulate GitHub. - This does not repair a GitHub internal error or runner interruption. Those failures remain nonpasses. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`), with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. Context-window size is not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
bce7503a82 |
perf(workspaces): time a restore's sandbox upload and extraction separately (#20331)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Remote (sandbox) workspaces are restored from a durable snapshot before a later turn, so restore time delays that turn's first token > - #20280 added run-log timing for the storage steps of a save and a restore > - A Daytona wave with a Paperclip-sized workspace (~750 MB) spent 39.9 s preparing the workspace of a restored run. The storage steps (download, decrypt, verify, publish) took 2.4 s, and `workspace.snapshot.sandbox_restore` took 35.6 s > - The archive helper unpacks the same archive locally in 3.6 s, so most of that time is elsewhere, probably copying 750 MB into the sandbox. One span cannot say which > - This pull request splits that span into the upload into the sandbox and the extraction in it > - The benefit is that the next measurement shows which part to fix ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20280 **What happened?** A restored run on Daytona spent 35.6 s in `workspace.snapshot.sandbox_restore` (wave `w-20261109T170632-s9921`, R1 workload, 754,838,327-byte snapshot). The run log records only that total, so it cannot show whether the copy into the sandbox or the unpack inside it is slow. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a remote workspace task with a large repository on Daytona and let a later run restore it. 2. Read the restored run's `run.performance.span` events. 3. Only `workspace.snapshot.sandbox_restore` covers the time after the storage download. **Expected behavior** The run log separates the upload into the sandbox from the extraction there. ## What Changed - `remote-workspace-transport.ts` (`restoreRemoteWorkspaceDirectory`): the archive copy into the sandbox runs inside `workspace.snapshot.sandbox_upload`, and the in-sandbox restore command inside `workspace.snapshot.sandbox_extract`. Both are children of the existing `workspace.snapshot.sandbox_restore`. - `execution-preparation-timing.ts`: the two new phase names. A traced `measureRunPhase` scope also carries its preparation ancestor's run (`recordRunId`). Without it, with an OTLP endpoint set, a step nested inside another step (here, upload and extract inside `sandbox_restore`) never reached the run log. Execution attempts still record nothing. - `doc/run-log-events.md`: the two rows in the durable storage timing table. - No behavior change. This is a run-log change: the rows stay in the instance database. ## Verification - New test `times the restore's sandbox upload and extraction as separate run-log steps` (`remote-workspace-transport.test.ts`). It restores a real archive through the real helper, inside the production `sandbox_restore` step with an OTLP endpoint set, with a 60 ms pause in each step, then reads the drained run phases. It fails without the spans or without the scope fix. - New test `records a step nested inside another step when an OTLP endpoint is set` (`execution-preparation-phases.test.ts`). It fails without the scope fix. - `npx vitest run` on `execution-preparation-phases`, `execution-preparation-timing`, `execution-timing-context`, `database-operation-attribution`, `native-workspace-finalization-work`, `remote-workspace-transport` and `remote-workspace-snapshot-storage`: 256 passed. ## Risks - Low risk. Two more measured steps on the restore path; spans under 50 ms are not recorded. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
4d2a77cf5a |
perf(workspaces): verify saved Git objects without a single-threaded full fsck (#20329)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Remote (sandbox) workspaces are saved to durable storage as encrypted snapshots, and restored before a later turn > - Saves and restores are a reported source of slowness on staging, so #20280 added run-log timing for each step > - A Daytona storage wave with a Paperclip-sized workspace (R1, ~750 MB, 19.5k entries) showed each save taking 58–68 s. Storage was only 2–3 s of that; capture inside the sandbox was 44–47 s > - The first save runs while the first run prepares its workspace, so it delays the first token > - A local profile of the same capture found one cause: `git fsck --full` re-hashes the whole history on one thread on every save > - This pull request keeps the same object checks but verifies packs on several threads > - The benefit is about 10 s less per save on a Paperclip-sized repository, with the same corruption protection ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18990, #20280 **What happened?** Saving a remote workspace with a large Git history is slow. On Daytona (3 vCPU), a Paperclip clone's save took 58–68 s; capture was 44–47 s of it. The first save is on the first run's critical path: `heartbeat.prepare.workspace` took 90–110 s before the first turn. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Clone Paperclip (`git clone https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git`, ~750 MB, one 459 MiB pack). 2. Run the generated archive helper: `node archive.cjs capture <clone> <out.pcws>` (from `remoteWorkspaceArchiveScript()`). 3. It takes ~30 s. A wrapper on `git` shows 22.5 s in one `git fsck --full --no-dangling` on the normalized copy. **Expected behavior** Capture verifies saved Git objects as #18990 requires (a missing or corrupt object blocks the save), without spending most of the save re-hashing unchanged history on one thread. ## What Changed - `remote-workspace-snapshot-archive.ts`: both `git fsck --full --no-dangling` calls (the offline source check and the normalized-copy check) now call a new `verifyGitObjects`. It runs: - `git fsck --connectivity-only --no-dangling`: every object reachable from refs, the index and saved Git state is present. - A direct hash of each loose object (inflate, then SHA-1 or SHA-256 per the repository's object format) against its file name. A mismatch or unreadable object fails with the existing `invalid_git_repository` reason. - `git index-pack --verify --threads=N` for every pack (N = available CPUs, at most 8). This re-hashes every packed object, on several threads. - `fsck --no-full` was not used: in a shallow clone it reports reflog entries that point at packed objects as invalid. - Tests (`remote-workspace-snapshot-archive.test.ts`): - New: capture refuses a repository missing a staged object, or a committed object. - New: capture refuses a repository with a corrupt byte inside a pack. - The existing #18990 test `rejects corrupt available objects in full/shallow/partial Git before publishing a receipt` (valid zlib, wrong hash) still passes. It failed with connectivity-only fsck alone, which is why the loose-object hash is there. ## Verification - `npx vitest run` on `remote-workspace-snapshot-archive`, `remote-workspace-transport`, `remote-workspace-migration`, `remote-workspace-online-source` and `remote-workspace-readonly-capture-budget`: 526 passed. - Local benchmark: a fresh clone of `https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git` (753,506,675-byte archive, 19,506 entries), alternating runs on one host: | Capture | Run 1 | Run 2 | |---|---|---| | master helper | 32.04 s | 30.05 s | | this branch | 21.07 s | 20.09 s | Both produce the same archive: equal byte size, manifest digest (`e5facf033409…`) and sha256 (`a4eb843bff1f…`). - Component timings on the same clone: `fsck --full` 20.5 s; `index-pack --verify` 19.5 s on 1 thread, 10.7 s on 3 threads; `fsck --connectivity-only` 0.9 s. - Daytona evidence for the problem (wave `w-20261109T170632-s9921`, R1, 3 vCPU, MinIO): save `captureMs` 44–47 s, `transferMs` 11–20 s, storage `putMs` 1.3–1.8 s, `encryptMs` 0.4–0.7 s. I did not rerun Daytona on this branch: its image must match the checkout's runner content. The local helper run is the same code the sandbox executes. ## Risks - Same guarantees as before for missing and corrupt objects. `fsck --full` also applies its object syntax checks to every packed object; `index-pack --verify` checks hashes and pack integrity. Commits and trees are still parsed by the connectivity walk, so malformed ones still fail. - More CPU threads during capture, for a shorter time. Capture already runs inside the sandbox, off the control plane. - A follow-up could skip re-verifying a pack that an earlier save of the same workspace already verified. Most saves keep the same clone pack, so that would remove the remaining ~10 s on repeat saves. Not in this PR. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
4a349ea447 |
fix(chat): tell agents that instruction saves keep no history (#20328)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Chat agents can read and edit other agents' instruction files with dedicated tools > - #14420 changed instruction saves: Paperclip now keeps only the current file and records no revision history > - The agent-facing descriptions still describe a "canonical instruction revision" history > - In a live eval, a chat agent asked to undo an instruction change found an empty history, read it as a test artifact, guessed the earlier text from the current file's wording, wrote it, and reported a restore > - This pull request tells agents the real contract in chat guidance and in the tool and API descriptions > - The benefit is that an undo with no saved version leaves the instructions alone and asks the person, instead of inventing an earlier version ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #14420 Refs #19515 (open: would list save records from the activity log. Those records hold no content, so they still cannot restore earlier text) **What happened** A person asked a chat agent: "Undo Morgan's last instruction change." Morgan's history was empty, because saves do not record revisions. The agent's reasoning said the history "is only populated with canonical revisions" and that there was "no revision tracking in this e2e harness". The agent then removed the last line of AGENTS.md and replied "Undone. Morgan's AGENTS.md is back to …". No saved source had the earlier text, so the agent guessed it. **Expected behavior** When there is no saved earlier version, the agent leaves the instructions unchanged. It says plainly that no earlier version was saved, and it asks the person for the text they want or which part to remove. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an agent with an AGENTS.md file. Edit the file once through `PUT /api/agents/{id}/instructions-bundle/file`. 2. `GET /api/agents/{id}/instructions-bundle/history?path=AGENTS.md` returns `{"revisions":[]}`. 3. Ask a chat agent to undo the agent's last instruction change. The agent rewrites the file from a guess. ## What Changed - `AGENT_CHAT_DIRECTIVE` now says three things: - Saves keep only the current instruction files. - An empty history means no earlier text is retained. - An undo with no listed revision must leave the file unchanged, say that no earlier version was saved, and ask for the wanted text. - The `get_agent_instruction_history` contract now says that it lists only pre-upgrade revisions, and that an empty list means Paperclip retains no earlier version. - The `restore_agent_instructions` contract now says that only listed pre-upgrade revisions can be restored. - The OpenAPI summary for `GET /api/agents/{id}/instructions-bundle/history` says the same. - The semantic tool contracts, the protocol manifest and the seeded eval catalog hash are regenerated. - Regression tests check the new guidance and both live tool contracts. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts server/src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts server/src/__tests__/runner-api.test.ts` passes. - In `packages/paperclip-runner`, `pnpm exec vitest run src/semantic-tools/paperclip-semantic-tools.test.ts src/catalog src/evals/native-execution.test.ts` passes. - `node scripts/generate-semantic-contracts.mjs --check`, `generate-protocol-manifest.mjs --check` and `generate-replay-goldens.mjs --check` pass. - `tsc --noEmit` passes for `server` and `packages/paperclip-runner`. - The live result is the chat eval `agents.restore-instructions`, run with this change cherry-picked: run 42666621831 passed. The agent replied that Morgan's history is empty and no earlier version exists. It left AGENTS.md unchanged and asked for the exact text or the line to remove. Run 42660236086, without this change, failed: the agent guessed and rewrote the file. ## Risks - Low risk. Only agent-facing text changes, and no behavior changes. - The runner semantic catalog hash changes. This is the same kind of change as #19983. - If #19515 lands, history lists save records without content. The guidance wording must then say that listed saves without content cannot be restored. Whichever PR merges second must reconcile the two texts. ## 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
|
f56b097fbd |
fix(recovery): move stranded legacy subtasks off a parent's held workspace (#20314)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents split work into subtasks. Since #19860, every subtask gets its own execution workspace from the project base, and a subtask that an older release bound to its parent's workspace moves to its own workspace on its next admission > - Some legacy subtasks never get a next admission. Another task held the shared workspace with unsaved files, so their runs failed setup before any provider work. Stranded-work recovery then blocked them and handed them to the board > - On staging, a parent and two of its children stayed blocked for four days this way. The children could have run in their own workspace at any time > - This pull request makes the scheduled recovery-action sweep move such a child to its own workspace and continue it, with no person > - The benefit is that a legacy subtask never stays blocked on a workspace that it should not share, and the parent keeps its own workspace ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19860 (subtasks get their own workspace; legacy children move at admission) Refs #20295 (the held workspace's exhausted save now settles automatically) Refs #20273 (stall wakes wait while a workspace hold refuses a run) **What happened?** A parent task and three children shared the parent's remote workspace, because an older release created the children before #19860. One child's ended run held the workspace with unsaved files. The other two children were woken, but each run failed setup with "The workspace still has an unfinished writer or save operation." (`setup_failed`, `executionRecovery.kind=bootstrap`, `providerWorkStarted=false`). Stranded-work recovery then set each child to Blocked with a board-owned escalation (`board_escalation_no_takeover_v1`) that asked a board operator to retry. The #19860 move happens only at the next admission, and a blocked child gets no admission. **Expected behavior** A subtask that failed only because of a legacy shared-workspace binding continues in its own workspace from the project base automatically. The parent and the shared workspace stay unchanged. **Steps to reproduce** 1. With a release before #19860, create a parent task and children that share its remote workspace. 2. Let one child's run end with unsaved files whose save is not settled. 3. Wake another child. Its run fails setup on the workspace hold, and stranded-work recovery blocks it with a board escalation. 4. See that the blocked child is never moved to its own workspace and never runs again. **Root cause** `server/src/services/execution-workspaces.ts` (`releaseAncestorWorkspaceBindingAtAdmission`) moves a legacy child only when a run of the child is admitted. `server/src/services/recovery/service.ts` (`reconcileStrandedAssignedIssues`) ignores Blocked tasks, so nothing admits a child that a setup failure on the shared hold blocked. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/execution-workspaces.ts`: extract the binding release into `releaseAncestorWorkspaceBinding(tx, …)`, which runs inside the caller's transaction. Admission uses it unchanged (same guards: no other running run of the task, no unsettled workspace recovery, only a relative's workspace). - New `server/src/services/recovery/legacy-workspace-rehome.ts` (`rehomeStrandedLegacyWorkspaceTasks`). It selects a board-owned stranded escalation whose latest run failed setup on the workspace writer hold before any provider work, for a Blocked task bound to a relative's workspace. In one transaction it releases the binding, resolves the escalation with the outcome `legacy_shared_workspace_rehomed`, sets the task to `todo`, records a pending wake (`legacyWorkspaceRehome.wake: "pending"`), and records `issue.legacy_workspace_rehomed` system activity. After commit it wakes the assignee once (`issue_recovery_action_restored`, with a fresh session) and marks the wake `delivered` only when a run is created. A wake lost to a crash, refused (`null`), or failed stays pending and backs off (5 minutes, doubling, at most an hour); the pass returns the earliest owed wake as its retry deadline, so the recovery worker schedules it. Candidates are paged by action id. - Guards: the Blocked status must come from that escalation (set after the failed run, and no status decision at or after the block), the shared dependency-readiness rule must allow work (cancelled blockers and done blockers that still save files keep it blocked), the failed run must belong to the current assignee, and the binding release must be allowed. Otherwise nothing changes. - `reconcileActiveRecoveryActions` (the company-scoped sweep that the scheduled issue-recovery worker runs for each company with an active recovery action) runs this pass first. `recoveryActionSweepCondition()` also selects a company whose moved task still owes its wake. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: documents the move and what a moved child sees. ### What a moved child sees A fresh workspace from the project base, exactly like a new top-level task in the project. It does not get the parent's changes. It does not get its own earlier files from the shared workspace either, because nothing of its work ran there (its runs failed setup before any provider work). The child that still holds the shared workspace with unsaved files is not moved by this change: its save recovery owns the hold (#20295 settles it automatically), its files stay in the shared workspace and in that recovery's saved-work receipts, and it moves on its first admission after that recovery settles (the #19860 rule). ### Previous-release story (`rules/upgrade-safe-run-state.mdc`) - **Migrated, no schema change.** The change reads escalations and task bindings that older releases saved, and it changes only the task's binding row, the task status, and the escalation. It does not change saved run identity (native execution input, leases, checkpoints, sessions). The regression test seeds the exact staging shape (Nov 4–5 evidence fields, `retryReason: workspace_busy`, `latestRunErrorCode: setup_failed`). - **Mid-run deploy.** A child with a running run or an unsettled workspace recovery is not moved (the same guards as the admission release). ## Verification - Red (the move disabled), `npx vitest run src/__tests__/legacy-workspace-rehome.test.ts`: 1 failed, 2 passed. The staging-shape case failed because the stranded child stayed Blocked and bound to the parent's workspace. - Green: 8 of 8 pass. All cases run the scheduled path: the company is selected by `recoveryActionSweepCondition()` and the pass is `recoveryService(...).reconcileActiveRecoveryActions({ companyId })` with the real heartbeat wake. - Staging shape: a parent and 3 children share the parent's workspace. One child holds it with a dirty writer run. Two children are blocked by board escalations after setup failed on that hold. After the stranded-work sweep, both children are unbound from the shared workspace, their escalations are resolved by the system with text that asks no person to act, and each child is woken exactly once with a fresh session. Each child runs once through the real heartbeat path outside the shared workspace and completes. The parent and the writer child keep their bindings, the shared workspace row is unchanged, and nothing runs for them. A later pass changes nothing. - A move whose wake was lost to a crash: the scheduled worker still selects the company, delivers the wake once, and the child runs and completes. - A refused wake (`null`) or a thrown enqueue stays pending, backs off, does not hold up other wakes, is reported to the worker as the next deadline, and keeps the company selected after a restart; once accepted, it settles. - Thirty rejected escalations do not hide a later eligible one (paging). - A child with a cancelled blocker stays blocked with its board escalation. - A child whose last status decision came before the block moves; one decided after the block stays blocked. - A stranded child whose setup failed for another reason stays blocked with its board escalation. - A task bound to the workspace it created (the parent) is never moved. - Related suites pass: `subtask-workspace-independence`, `heartbeat-workspace-busy`, `heartbeat-remote-workspace-busy`, `heartbeat-held-comment-wake`, `recovery-deadline-acceptance`, `heartbeat-retry-scheduling`, `task-workspace-binding` (278 tests), and after the review changes `issue-blocker-stall-wakeups`, `issue-recovery-deadlines`, `issue-recovery-work-lifecycle`, `recovery-durable-wait-projection`, `owner-gone-attestation` (124 tests with the two workspace suites). - `pnpm verify`: exit 2 ("broader verification required", because `doc/execution-semantics.md` is a global CI input). Required CI supplies the broad coverage. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json`: passes. ## Risks - The pass changes a Blocked task to `todo` only under narrow guards, and only for a task bound to a relative's workspace whose last run failed setup on that workspace's writer hold. A Blocked status from another decision, or an unresolved blocker, keeps the task blocked. - The moved child starts again from the project base. This is the product rule for subtasks. Nothing of its own work is dropped, because its runs failed before any provider work. - The pass runs inside the existing active recovery action sweep and selects at most 25 escalations and 25 pending wakes per pass. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, browser read-only API checks) and 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
|
34c1e6469c |
fix(storage): retry small uploads and resume broken downloads (#20313)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A task's files live in a sandbox. Paperclip saves them to object storage when a run ends and restores them when the next run starts > - Object storage has short blips: a single 500, a reset connection, a download cut off halfway. Each of these used to fail the whole save or restore once, with no second try > - This pull request makes a short blip invisible. Longer outages are handled by the storage-unavailable wait (#20299 and a follow-up) > - The benefit is that tasks keep moving through ordinary storage failures without anyone clicking Retry ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19831. Storage chaos waves `w-20261109T145628-s9902` (ST1) and `w-20261109T151711-s9903` (ST2). - A single-request upload (files up to the multipart threshold, which includes most workspace archives) sent once. A 500 or connection reset failed the save. - A download whose body broke mid-stream failed the restore, even though S3 can resume from the byte offset. Related: #20299 (storage outage is shown as an infrastructure wait instead of a failure). ## What Changed - `server/src/storage/s3-multipart.ts`: `sendFileRequestWithRetry` resends a single file request and records throttles and backoff in the save timing. It uses the same throttle backoff as multipart parts for 429/503/SlowDown and up to the same part attempt count for other failures. It honours the caller's abort signal. - `server/src/storage/s3-provider.ts`: - A file-backed `putObject` under the multipart threshold uses that retry and reopens the source file for each attempt, so a resend never reuses a half-read stream. The Content-MD5 is computed once from the file and still verified by S3 on each attempt. - `getObject` resumes a body that fails with a transient socket error (reset, timeout, premature close and similar). It continues with a ranged GET from the byte where the stream stopped, at most three times. The resumed request carries `If-Match` with the first response's ETag, so a changed object fails instead of mixing bytes. Body-failure diagnostics are still recorded on every response. Destroying the returned stream closes the S3 body it is reading, even mid-read, so read timeouts and client disconnects still release the connection. - Tests: - `server/src/__tests__/storage-s3-transient-retry.test.ts` (new) runs against a local HTTP server speaking S3. ## Verification Red/green (each new test fails against master and passes with this PR): - `storage-s3-transient-retry.test.ts`: - A small upload is resent after a 500 and after a connection reset, re-reading the file. The second PUT carries the full content. - A download cut off mid-body resumes with `Range: bytes=<offset>-` and `If-Match`, and returns the complete bytes. - A download whose object changed before the resume fails with a precondition error and does not return mixed bytes. - A stalled download that its reader destroys closes its connection. Regression: the storage and workspace-finalization suites pass locally, and `tsc --noEmit` passes for `server`. ## Risks - Resending an upload is safe because each attempt writes the full object with the same Content-MD5. Resuming a download is bounded to three resumes and refuses a changed object. - No schema migration and no API change. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
a3e7e63330 |
Guard Native recovery with process-space proof and explicit containment (#19813)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their work. > - Recovery must preserve execution ownership and accepted results. > - A saved PID proves nothing outside its recorded process namespace. > - Uncertain unfinished work must stay held until its original owners stop. > - Operators need a source-bound containment action and a separate ordinary Retry. > - Accepted results must use the existing finalizer without another provider turn. > - This PR keeps those paths safe, recoverable, and quiet between real obligations. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #19713 Refs: #19591 Recovery could use a local PID to release or replace a controller from another process namespace. Connected-chat Retry also rejected successful containment on a task in `todo`. The new containment action used a broader permission than the existing owner-stop action. A later review found that result-less guards also rejected the existing accepted-result confirmation action. ## What Changed - Record and verify the controller's kernel/PID namespace. Keep unknown and foreign unfinished ownership held. Preserve independent durable stop evidence and the existing remote lease fences. - Use the shared accepted-result ownership reconciler. Bind settlement to the observed lease token, generation, boot, PID, namespace and process birth. Retain finalizer, cleanup, current-controller, live-owner and remote exclusions. - Share the remote-owner reader across recovery consumers. Scope runner leases to the same company, task and run. Do not make local PID probes for remote accepted-result ownership. - Gate original-host containment on `runtime:confirm_owner_stop`. Bind it to the current task, source, assignee, original expiry, lease and Stop state. Audit separate controller/provider containment and reviewed action outcomes. - Keep containment separate from ordinary Retry. Use one canonical committed receipt and the normal admission, budget, workspace and lineage checks. Preserve the recorded external-action outcomes. - Keep the controller-only confirmation actionable for both result-less work and accepted results. Result-less work gets its next source-bound attention in the same transaction. Accepted results keep their original result and use normal shared settlement/finalization. - Keep identity inspection quiet. Preserve the original foreign-owner expiry and use the existing scoped finalizer in accepted-result recovery controls. - Update the recovery card, validators, execution projection, docs and access maps. Reuse existing canonical columns; add no migration or ownership backfill. ## Verification Current publication head: `71ea76b568de09d6313d8992e803131d9d5c54f3`. **The current fix has a causal red/green check.** On the test-only revision, both foreign-local stopped/fenced controller cases failed because recovery probed saved runner, process-group and provider PIDs in this host's namespace. This measured the wrong probes; it did not run duplicate providers. After the fix, the same two cases passed every no-probe, no-claim, no-controller-stamp, no-stop-receipt and unchanged-authority assertion. Three existing remote preparation, grace and fenced-controller progress cases also passed. Total: **5 passed, 0 failed;170 filtered rows excluded**. All three normal affected App TypeScript programs passed on this head (660,681 and428 roots). The fix separates a controller wait from execution stop proof. Independent live/grace evidence still schedules recovery. A stopped/fenced foreign controller can pass this namespace guard only for remote execution, which keeps its later checkpoint and never-launched checks. Foreign local execution stays held before runner or provider PID inspection. Earlier source-scoped results remain evidence, not fresh executions on the current head: - On `c86dd741`, the complete failed-owner file passed **25/25**, with no skips or filters. Empty scans wrote no controller stamps. Foreign ownership kept its original expiry. Normal returned-claim settlement and attention at the exact deadline passed. - On `c86dd741`, **15 selected accepted-result/restart controls passed**. The81 filtered rows are excluded. Both completion cases used the existing scoped finalizer and kept their accepted result without another provider turn. - Trusted CI at synthetic merge `50d072a5` (actual master `1b7fe334` plus `c86dd741`) passed the complete **17-case maintenance-server file**. This includes the original90-real-second quiet observation and two qualified hourly windows. The quiet case took118,918ms. The four jobs that failed on the earlier publication all passed on that synthetic merge. - On `6243b32c`, the complete ownership-report file passed **29/29**. Native NULL namespace stayed unprovable and generic compatibility remained. Three selected recovery controls passed;170 filtered rows are excluded. - On `f81f2c3c`,356 business cases passed: whole ownership-route221, recoveryUI70, owner-proof38 and controller-confirmation8; selected accepted-result authority18; and one real connected-chat containment, separate authorized Retry, useful Native result and downstream reply case. The2,024 filtered rows are excluded. A separate earlier accepted-result causal case kept the original result and completed after restart without replay. Normal Shared exports, App programs, UI typecheck, token gates and map checks passed on their recorded revisions. Unchanged DB, adapter, Eval and Runner inputs/outputs have explicit carry proofs. The clean normal merge with fetched master `8fe524f7` preserves all31 exclusive owned paths and14,827 unrelated master entries. The nine overlapping paths were reviewed, including the upstream unidentified-run stop action. Fresh CI must validate that actual merge composition. PG cases used existing external PG17, fresh owned databases, pools at most4, one worker and no SQL observer during cases. Registered clients and recorded process groups closed. Independent final SQL audits found zero campaign sessions before normal database cleanup. Original failing fixtures remain retained. Original failures are preserved. One new test first failed compilation due to a missing getter import; an import-only correction passed its full owning programs before the causal red/green check. A local quiet attempt stopped in the normal prerequisite hook before any business case and its collector rejected two normal build markers. The later17-case CI pass establishes quiet recovery; it does not turn that failed local collector into a pass. An earlier useful case passed before its private cleanup collector failed on an owned read-only directory; normal cleanup completed after all owners closed. Earlier runner-shutdown cancellation and a separate private whole-suite failure remain unexplained. Current-head checks are complete:57 success,1 neutral and3 skipped, including the successful aggregate CI gate. The legacy status passed. Greptile is5/5 and Ponytail gives an explicit5/5 Ship verdict for this head. All seven review threads are resolved. Full recursive typecheck, the full test suite and release build were not repeated locally. No result here proves deployed suspension, a live provider or termination on another host. ## Risks - Unknown physical ownership can require an owner/admin action. A false containment statement can be unsafe. - New work, reassignment, Stop, renewed authority, accepted results or pending cleanup can invalidate an action. The operator must refresh. - Controller confirmation does not prove provider/tool containment. Completed external actions must not be replayed. - Generic legacy and child-process compatibility remains separate from the strict Native controller policy. - Existing saved state and canonical schema are preserved. Permanent safety refusals remain held with their normal named recovery path. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` agents implemented and tested the changes with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. A GPT-6-based Codex managing agent reviewed and integrated them. The host does not expose the manager's exact build or the context-window sizes. ## 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 tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
365c771030 |
fix(chat): give project and workspace tool results their page links (#20324)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People ask a chat agent to take them to a project or to the files of a task > - The agent finds the right project or workspace, but it cannot link the page > - The `list_projects` and `list_workspaces` tool results have no page route, and the chat link guidance names no project or workspace format > - The agent then writes a bare path or a shortened directory that the person cannot open > - This pull request adds the page `href` to these tool results and adds the project link format to the chat guidance > - The benefit is that chat replies give a clickable link to the real project or workspace page ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** In chat, a person asked "Take me to the Launch project and show its open tasks." The agent found the project. Its reasoning said "There's no project page route documented explicitly". The reply wrote the project as a bare path `/COM/projects/<id>`, which is not clickable. In a second chat, a person asked where the files of a task are. The agent named the correct workspace but gave a shortened directory and no link. **Expected behavior** The reply links the project page (`/<prefix>/projects/<id>`) and the task's workspace page (`/<prefix>/execution-workspaces/<id>`) as Markdown links, so the person can open them. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a company with a project and a task that has a saved execution workspace. Enable isolated workspaces. 2. In chat, ask the agent to take you to the project, or to say where the task's files are. 3. Look at the reply. It has no project or workspace link. Related: Refs #17985 (an earlier open PR that adds project and goal link wording for newly created projects only). This PR covers project discovery and workspaces and adds tool-result hrefs. ## What Changed - `list_projects` rows now carry `href: /<prefix>/projects/<id>`. Both the native runner tool authority and the MCP project-tools route pass the company prefix. - `get_workspace` and `list_workspaces` now carry `href: /<prefix>/execution-workspaces/<id>`, only while isolated workspaces are enabled. The workspace route redirects to the dashboard when the feature is off, so no href is offered then. - The chat link guidance (`AGENT_CHAT_DIRECTIVE`) adds the project link format. It tells the agent to link a returned `href`, and to name a workspace that has no `href` instead of linking it. - Regression tests: guidance text against the registered UI route, `callProjectTool` href, and an embedded-Postgres authority test for project hrefs and the workspace flag on/off. ## Verification - Red then green: the three new tests fail on `origin/master` source and pass with this change. - `npx vitest run` in `server/` for: `agent-conversations`, `task-workspace-api`, `project-tools-pagination`, `task-workspace-tools`, `chat-project-tools`, `dot-runner`, `heartbeat-list` (prompt-size limits), `task-markdown`, `muse-native-visibility`, `paperclip-runner-tool-authority`, `runner-api`, `codex-local-execute`, `board-access-denial`. All pass. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server` passes. - Live chat eval: see the comment on this PR for the paid runner E2E run of `navigation-preferences.find-project-view` and `workspaces.locate-files` with this change. ## Risks - Low risk. The change adds one optional field to read-only tool results. The output schemas allow extra fields. - The guidance grows by two sentences. The prompt-size test in `heartbeat-list.test.ts` passes. - `list_projects` and the workspace tools now do one extra small read (company prefix, and the instance experimental settings for workspaces). ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), agentic coding with tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
0f84df91da |
fix(native): accept a completed child's file in the parent's completion report (#20325)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - In onboarding, the agent plans the user's first task, creates one child task for the work, and waits for it > - The `first-task` skill tells the agent to publish a requested file on the child task. When the parent wakes, the agent links the child's file and does not publish a copy > - Native `register_deliverable` is bound to its current task, so the parent cannot register the child's file again > - The native completion check required each cited attachment to be on the task being completed > - So when the parent cited the child's download link, `paperclip_finish` failed, and the agent reported the finished onboarding task as blocked > - This pull request lets a completion report cite an attachment on a direct child task that is done > - The benefit is that onboarding closes after its child task delivers a file, and the user does not see a false "blocked" status ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #18258 (onboarding artifact completion instructions). **What happened?** An onboarding run created a child task to build and publish a project. The child task registered `project.zip` with `register_deliverable` and was marked done. The parent woke with reason `issue_children_completed`. The agent called `paperclip_finish` with `reportedWorkDisposition: "done"` and cited the child's `/api/attachments/<id>/content` link. The call failed two times with: ``` Completion cites no registered attachment on this task. Use register_deliverable for the requested file and cite deliverable:<attachmentId> from its receipt. ``` The skill does not let the agent register the file on the parent, so the agent called `paperclip_block` with "Paperclip completion validation" as the owner. The parent task stayed `blocked`. Nothing wakes it again. **Expected behavior** The parent completes and links the child's file. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a task with a child task. 2. In a native run on the child, register a file with `register_deliverable`, and mark the child done. 3. In a native run on the parent, call `paperclip_finish` with `reportedWorkDisposition: "done"` and the child's `deliverable:<attachmentId>` or `/api/attachments/<attachmentId>/content` as evidence. 4. The call fails with "Completion cites no registered attachment on this task". ## What Changed - `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-deliverable-feedback.ts`: when a cited attachment is not on the task, `validateNativeDeliverableEvidence` also looks for it on a direct child task with status `done`. If it is there, the citation is accepted. - The child's file is context, the same as an attachment from an earlier run on the same task. It does not count as this run's publication of a file that the parent's own request names. - With `lockSources`, the finalization path locks the attachment and child task rows with `FOR SHARE NOWAIT`, as it does for other sources. - The error text now says "on this task or its completed child tasks". - This applies to the `paperclip_finish` check and to the two finalization checks, because they use the same function. - `doc/AGENT-ARTIFACTS.md`: the native runner section states that a completion report can cite a file on a completed direct child task. ## Verification - Extended "prepares one verified same-run attachment and replays without duplicates" in `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-runner-file-handoff.test.ts`: - An attachment on an unrelated task is still rejected. - An attachment on a child task that is not done is still rejected. - An attachment on a done child task is accepted, through `paperclip_finish` and through the locked finalization path. - When the parent's own request names a file, the child's file alone does not satisfy it. - Without the source change, the test fails with the same error as the run above. - `npx vitest run` on `chat-attachment-reuse`, `native-completion-feedback`, `native-completion-format-feedback`, `native-deliverable-feedback`, and `native-runner-file-handoff` tests in `server/src/services/native-runtime`: 281 passed. - `npx vitest run src/__tests__/native-result-commit-work.test.ts src/__tests__/native-status-arbiter-corpus.test.ts` in `server`: 167 passed. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` passes. ## Risks - Only direct children with status `done` are accepted. A grandchild's file, or a file on a child that is not done, is still rejected. - A parent that names a requested file in its own request still needs its own delivery evidence. This keeps the current rule for earlier outputs. - A task that is already blocked by this error does not change. The user can mark it done, or comment so the agent runs again. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used through Claude Code with tool use (code reading, database queries, shell commands, and 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 Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
47dccbf3eb |
fix(recovery): re-prove an exhausted save's agent stop and free the workspace (#20295)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - When an agent run ends, Paperclip saves the files that the run changed in its remote workspace. Until that save settles, the run holds the workspace, so no other task can write it > - When the save fails, a bounded system recovery proves that the agent stopped (a provider stop receipt) and then saves the files again > - If the stop cannot be proven before the 30-minute recovery window ends, the recovery is exhausted with `agent_stop_unconfirmed`. Exhaustion was terminal: Paperclip never proved the stop again, even after the run ended and its sandbox had a stop receipt > - The hold then stayed forever. On staging, a child task's save was exhausted this way on Nov 5. Its parent and its two sibling tasks share that workspace, and all of them stayed blocked for four days > - This pull request re-arms such an exhausted save automatically, on a bounded backoff, once the run is provably over. After the bounded re-arms, the hold continues from the last save with the unsaved files attached > - The benefit is that a dirty workspace hold always settles without a person, and no unsaved work is discarded silently ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20273 (the stall sweep stops failing wakes against this kind of hold) Refs #20278 (a settled restore hold returns its warm sandbox) Refs #19860 (subtasks get their own workspace) **What happened?** A child task's run wrote its remote workspace and failed to save it (`native_workspace_sync_out_retry_exhausted`). The save recovery made one attempt. That attempt failed with `agent_stop_unconfirmed`, and the recovery window ended before a second attempt. The recovery became `exhausted`. Ten minutes after the first attempt, the sandbox lease got a provider stop receipt, so the agent was provably gone. But nothing looked at the exhausted recovery again. The run kept the workspace's writer hold. The parent task and every other task on that workspace could not start ("The workspace still has an unfinished writer or save operation."). The blocker told a person to press Retry. **Expected behavior** An unproven stop is a wait, not a refusal of the saved files. When the run is over, recovery must prove the stop again and finish the save, so the hold settles automatically. If the stop still cannot be proven, Paperclip must keep the unsaved files and then release the hold. A person must not need to act. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a task in a remote (sandbox) workspace. Make its final save fail. 2. Keep the workspace recovery from proving the agent stop until its 30-minute window ends (for example, keep the finalization ownership busy). 3. See that the recovery action is `exhausted` with `agent_stop_unconfirmed`, and that it stays so after the lease gets a stop receipt. 4. Wake another task bound to the same workspace. See that its setup fails because the workspace is held. **Root cause** - `server/src/services/workspace-recovery.ts` (`recoverRetainedWorkspace`): an `exhausted` state only goes to the sibling settlement and to the retained-source fallback. The fallback accepts only permanent source refusals (`isUnverifiableSourceFailure`). Every other exhausted state is handed to the board and never attempted again. - `recheckStoppedWorkspaceRecovery` skips `exhausted` states, and it only accepts acknowledged cancellations. A failed run whose lease got a stop receipt later is never re-examined. - `retainedWorkspaceCandidates(…, obligationsOnly)` and `nextWorkspaceRecoveryAt` do not select exhausted `agent_stop_unconfirmed` holds, so the recovery worker never wakes for them. ## What Changed - New `server/src/services/workspace-recovery-stop-proof.ts` (`rearmExhaustedStopProof`). For an exhausted save whose last failure is `agent_stop_unconfirmed` (`recheck_evidence`), it starts a new bounded system recovery generation. It does this only when the source run is provably over: the run is terminal, no local execution remains, and no controller lease or finalizer lease is live. The new generation repeats the strict stop proof (a provider stop receipt) and the save. It records an `issue.workspace_recovery_rearmed` system activity. - Re-arms are bounded: at most 4. The first is due at once. The next ones are due 30 minutes, 2 hours and 8 hours after the previous re-arm. The `stopProofRecovery` marker in the recovery action evidence records the count and the next due time. - `workspace-recovery-fallback-discovery.ts`: new discovery conditions (`stopProofRearmPendingCondition`, `stopProofRearmDueAt`, `stopProofRearmDueCondition`) and `retainedHoldFallbackEligible`. `retainedWorkspaceCandidates` (worker pass) and `nextWorkspaceRecoveryAt` use them, so the recovery worker wakes when a re-arm is due. - `workspace-recovery-fallback.ts`: when every re-arm is spent and the stop is still unproven, the hold takes the existing retained-source fallback. The unsaved files are attached to the task (unapplied, secrets omitted), the unverified epoch is abandoned, and the task continues from the last save. - `system-recovery-state.ts`: the exhausted `agent_stop_unconfirmed` text now says that Paperclip tries again automatically. It no longer asks a person to press Retry. Retry stays available. - Review follow-ups: the re-arm applies to every workspace recovery the worker owns (restore and historical holds too). A due re-arm is scheduled no earlier than the source run's controller or finalizer lease expiry, so the worker is not woken every 15 seconds while a lease is live. A fallback whose bounded checks are spent is reconsidered once when an allocation of the source run changes, and `settleStopOnlyCleanup` wakes the workspace recovery worker when it records a stop receipt. The automatic-retry text is shown only while a re-arm remains. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: documents the re-arm, its bounds, the fallback, and the upgrade behavior. ### Previous-release story (`rules/upgrade-safe-run-state.mdc`) - **Carried forward, no migration.** A hold exhausted by an older release has no `stopProofRecovery` marker. The recovery worker treats it as due at once and re-arms it on its first pass after deploy. The new regression test saves the exact Nov 5 evidence shape (`attempts: 1`, `retriesUsed: 0`, `state: exhausted`, no marker) and resumes it with the new code. - **Mid-run deploy.** A run that is still running, or whose controller lease or finalizer lease is live, is not re-armed. The test covers a live controller lease. The re-arm uses the same CAS (generation and revision) and the same row locks as the other recovery writers, so an old worker's late write cannot overwrite the new generation. - **No new refusal codes.** No saved run identity changes. The re-arm writes only recovery-action evidence. ## Verification - Red (before the fix), `npx vitest run src/services/workspace-recovery-stop-proof.test.ts`: 3 failed, 1 passed. The staging-shape test failed because the worker did not wake (`nextWorkspaceRecoveryAt` returned `null`) and the hold stayed. The backoff and fallback tests failed for the same discovery gap. - Green (after the fix): 4 of 4 pass. - Staging shape: a parent and 3 children that share one remote workspace. One child's save is exhausted with `agent_stop_unconfirmed`, and its run ended days ago with a stop receipt. Before recovery, the hold refuses the parent (`remoteWorkspaceHoldRefusesStart` is `true`). The recovery worker discovers the hold, re-arms it, proves the stop, saves the files and completes. The workspace is not dirty, it has a new snapshot, and the hold is `free` for the parent. The action stays system-owned and its text asks no person to act. - A live controller lease keeps the hold. No re-arm happens and no lease is resumed. - A re-arm that is not yet due is not discovered. The worker's next wake is in the future, and the text says that Paperclip tries again automatically. - After 4 re-arms, the hold continues from the last save. The unsaved files are captured as a task attachment, and the hold is `free`. - A live controller lease defers the worker's next wake to the lease expiry, and the hold is not selected before it. - A spent fallback is not selected, and a later lease change (a late stop receipt) makes it selected again; the worker then settles it. - `system-recovery-state.test.ts`: the automatic-retry text appears only while a re-arm remains. - Related suites, all pass: `src/services/workspace-recovery*`, `src/services/remote-workspace*`, `src/services/system-recovery-state.test.ts`, `src/services/task-retry.test.ts`, `src/__tests__/heartbeat-observed-workspace-preservation.test.ts` (34 files, 1510 tests), plus the stop-cleanup suites (`environment-retained-orphan-sandbox`, `live-recovery-work`, `retained-native-session-cleanup-work`, `legacy-workspace-restore-recovery`, native workspace warm-reuse, cancelled preservation, reconstruction and failed recovery; 11 files, 622 tests). - `pnpm verify`: exit 2 ("broader verification required", because `doc/execution-semantics.md` is a global CI input). The focused suites above cover the change, and required CI supplies the broad coverage. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json`: passes. ## Risks - A re-armed generation resumes the stopped sandbox to save its files. This is the same physical path as a manual Retry. It runs only when the source run is provably over. - Re-arms are bounded (4) and spaced, so a stop that can never be proven does not loop. After that, the existing retained-source fallback settles the hold. If the retained files cannot be read, the fallback records why. This is the same behavior as for a refused source. - The parent's workspace receives the child's saved files, because the child (bound by an older release) wrote that workspace. This is the existing #19860 behavior: the files that a legacy child left in the shared workspace stay there. #20314 moves the stranded legacy children to their own workspace. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, browser read-only API checks) and 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
|
8fe524f796 |
fix(issues): let the board confirm an unidentified run stopped instead of an endless Retry wait (#20310)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Before a new attempt can start on a task, Paperclip must prove the previous run's agent stopped, so two agents never work the same task at once > - A local native run can be interrupted after it asked to start the runner but before it recorded the runner's process. The runner may have saved state and started a provider, and provider processes can outlive it, so the existing check (#19694) rightly refuses to assume the run stopped > - Today that case has no way out: every Retry is accepted and then waits forever as `process_identity_missing` (storage chaos ST1, t02/t03) > - This pull request makes the wait explicit and actionable. The task explains why it waits, and a board operator who has checked can confirm the run stopped; the parked Retry then starts at the click > - A second shape from the Daytona storage baseline (t06) parked a Retry with no reason at all: a follow-up was interrupted by a graceful shutdown while it was still restoring its workspace. No provider ran, but the restore hold kept the same agent held, so the Retry never started > - The benefit is that no Retry stays accepted-and-waiting with nothing anyone can do ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19831. Storage chaos wave `w-20261109T145628-s9902` (ST1), tasks t02 and t03. **What happened (CHA-3, run `3c3f6241`):** - The run requested a runner launch (`native.process_start_requested`), and a K2 restart hit before its process identity was recorded. - After the restart, the resumed attempt failed on the storage outage. The task was blocked. - The board's Retry (202) was parked as `executionWait.reason = process_identity_missing`: "The previous run has no verified stop record." - `recordUnidentifiedLocalRunnerStop` cannot prove the stop because this run's runner saved control-plane state. Once that exists, a provider may have started (#19694), and a provider is not guaranteed to carry `--run-id` or `PAPERCLIP_RUN_ID` (the Codex provider env omits it on purpose). The shared owner prover needs a PID, which the run never recorded. - Nothing could ever clear the wait. **Daytona storage baseline `w-20261109T154810-s9911`, task t06:** - The run succeeded. The follow-up was cancelled (`continuation_task_ownership_changed`), and the next run was interrupted by a graceful shutdown (`server_shutdown_interrupted`) 3 s into `preparing`. It was restoring the saved remote workspace and had launched no provider. - Restore recovery saved the files (`workspaceRecovery.status: recovered`, system recovery `complete`). But the `legacy_execution_requires_reconciliation` restore hold releases only for a different owner, or for a native Stop fenced before any provider turn, so it kept the same agent held. - The UI Retry returned 202 and parked with `executionWait.reason: execution_recovery`, the generic wait, so the task showed a Retry that never started. Automatic proof needs the runner to record its identity before saving state and to group provider processes under it. That is follow-up runner work; this PR removes the endless wait now. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/native-local-process-stop.ts`: new `confirmUnidentifiedLocalRunnerStopped`. It accepts only a finished native run of the task with no recorded process and whose latest launch evidence is an unconfirmed launch on this host in a local environment. It still refuses while a runner with `--run-id <run>` is running. It records `native.local_process_stopped` with `basis: "operator_attested"` and the attesting user. That is the receipt the existing continuation gate already accepts. - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: `POST /issues/:id/recovery-actions/confirm-run-stopped` (`runId`, `stopEvidence` of 20 to 12,000 characters). It is board-only and requires issue read plus `runtime:confirm_owner_stop`, like the other stop attestations. It logs `issue.run_stop_confirmed` with the evidence, promotes deferred intents for the issue, and resumes each parked task Retry, so work starts at the click. Refusals return 409 with a code. - `packages/shared`: `confirmRunStoppedSchema`, and the presentation user action `confirm_run_stopped`. - `server/src/services/task-interruption-presentation.ts`: a Retry parked as `process_identity_missing` for a native run that recorded no process now presents as waiting for the user (`canRetry: false`, `userAction: "confirm_run_stopped"`), with a message explaining why and who can act. A run with a recorded process keeps the existing verification wait. - UI: - `ExecutionBlockerNotice` shows the explanation and, for users who can confirm a stop, "Confirm it stopped" with a short evidence form. - It reuses `PreviousServerStopConfirmation`, now with optional `action`, explicit `runId` and `formId`, and a custom button label. - The Inbox names the action. - `server/src/services/execution-blocker.ts`: `interruptedPreparationBeforeProviderWorkCondition`. The restore hold also releases for the same agent when the stopped run was a system-interrupted preparation (legacy runtime never resolved, still `preparing`) with no process identity, no runner or provider events, no finalization or result, and every lease released with a confirmed stop. It mirrors the existing interrupted-preparation proof and still requires the completed workspace-recovery receipt. Auto-replay is unchanged; this only lets the user's Retry or message start. - Review fixes: - `unidentifiedLocalLaunchRefusal` holds the endpoint's launch, host and lease checks, and the presentation offers `confirm_run_stopped` only when it passes. - The attested stop wakes cost accounting in the same transaction. - The confirmation form is keyed by task and run. - The route is registered in OpenAPI. ## Verification Red/green (each new test fails against master and passes with this PR): - `server/src/__tests__/issue-confirm-run-stopped-routes.test.ts`: - The parked Retry presents `confirm_run_stopped` with the explanation. - Confirming records the operator-attested stop and the activity entry, satisfies the stop check, and resumes the parked Retry: its receipt is coalesced into a newly started run. - It refuses with 409 while a runner for the run is running. - Agents and viewers get 403. - `ui/src/components/ExecutionBlockerNotice.confirm-run-stopped.test.tsx`: the notice offers "Confirm it stopped" (and no dead Retry) and posts the run and evidence. A viewer sees the explanation without the action. - `server/src/__tests__/interrupted-preparation-restore-retry.test.ts` (t06 shape): - The restore hold no longer blocks. - A Retry is accepted and resumed into a started run, and the audit hold keeps `replay: blocked`. - The hold stays when a provider turn started, when a runner event was recorded, when an operator stopped the run, or when the sandbox has no stop receipt. - `issue-confirm-run-stopped-routes.test.ts`: - A case per refusal code checks the presentation keeps the generic wait and the endpoint returns 409. - An `alreadyStopped` case. - An accounting-wake assertion. - The UI test switches targets with stale evidence. Regression and static checks: - `ExecutionBlockerNotice`, `WorkspaceExportRecovery` and its control tests: 74 passed. - `tsc --noEmit` passes for `packages/shared`, `server` and `ui/src`. `pnpm check:token-gates` is clean. ## Risks - A board operator can now attest that an unidentified run stopped. The attestation is permission-gated, requires written evidence, is activity-logged, and is refused while a runner for the run is visibly running. A wrong attestation could start a second agent beside an orphaned provider, the same trust model as the existing previous-server attestations. - The confirmation component now accepts a run without a recovery action. Existing callers pass the action as before. - No schema migration. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ff2d463eed |
feat(cli): manage agent grants and keep remote login on the public origin (#20323)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip lets people control their AI agents and permissions.
> - Remote operators need a browser-approved CLI login.
> - Proxies can send that login's approval link to an internal host.
> - Human member commands cannot grant an agent an explicit permission
such as commentary:view.
> - This change keeps approval on the canonical public origin and adds
Board-only single-grant commands.
> - The API checks company access and permission-management authority
and records each change.
> - An operator can sign in, grant one agent permission, and preserve
the agent's other grants.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A proxied CLI login returned an approval URL on the upstream host. The
signed-in browser was on the public host. The CLI also had no command to
add an arbitrary explicit agent grant: member commands manage human
members, while agent permissions:update exposes fixed configuration
fields.
**Expected behavior**
Approval uses the configured canonical public origin. A Board operator
with users:manage_permissions can grant or revoke one explicit agent
permission without replacing other grants or activating an inactive
membership.
**Steps to reproduce**
Configure a public auth origin. Create a CLI challenge through a proxy
that replaces forwarded-host headers. Inspect the approval URL. Then try
to grant commentary:view to an agent through the CLI.
## What Changed
- Use the existing public-origin resolver for CLI approval URLs.
- Add agent permission:grant and permission:revoke commands.
- Add PATCH /api/agents/{id}/permission-grants with strict shared
validation and Board-only OpenAPI metadata.
- Serialize each mutation on the agent row. Preserve unrelated grants
and membership state. Commit the grant and its activity record together
and publish activity after commit.
- Document remote login and single-grant management.
## Verification
- The new approval-link regression failed before the fix and passes
after it.
- All 25 CLI auth route tests pass.
- All 72 affected CLI, login and OpenAPI tests pass.
- All 5 PostgreSQL grant tests pass, including actual commentary reads
(403 before grant, 200 after grant, 403 after revoke), preservation,
audit attribution, concurrent additions, invalid inputs, inactive or
missing membership, agent self-grants, cross-company denial, and
rollback on audit failure.
- Shared and CLI typechecks and server declaration-layer checks pass.
- pnpm verify requests broad CI coverage because doc/CLI.md is a global
verification input. Greptile reviewed final head
|
||
|
Dotta
|
1b7fe33432 |
fix(workspaces): preserve import verification across process restarts (#20311)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Online import preserves old local files before the web server can use a disposable filesystem. > - A parent import must authenticate saved child archives before it can omit their directories. > - The operation journal preserves import identity, but completed child checks existed only in process memory. > - A container restart therefore repeated downloads, decryption and restoration that had already succeeded. > - This pull request saves a versioned verification receipt on each immutable child snapshot. > - A replacement process can reuse those checks while it reacquires locks and verifies current local files. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19854 for verification reuse within a live source fence. Refs #19873 for cohort import. Refs #20298 for the separate remote-hold admission fix. Searched related workspace verification and restart PRs; none provides durable child verification. **What happened?** Replacing a server container interrupts a long online import. The original operation and snapshot survive, but a later invocation downloads, decrypts and restores completed child archives again. The current cache ends with the source-lock owner. **Expected behavior** Completed immutable checks survive process and scratch loss. Resume keeps the same operation and snapshot, reuses only correctly bound verification, and publishes once. Current local files and Git state must still be checked under fresh source locks. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Import two nested child workspaces, then start the parent import. 2. Kill the importer after a child verification finishes. Remove its scratch directory. 3. Resume in a new process. Before this fix, the completed child is downloaded and restored again. **Paperclip version or commit** The regression fails on the previous migration verifier. The final branch includes master at `189fefb99183953be37f0d1084275fbb0f35d6e2`. **Deployment mode** Managed Linux server with PostgreSQL and explicit S3 storage configuration. ## What Changed - Add optional opaque storage namespace identity. S3 binds it to the explicit endpoint, region, bucket, normalized prefix and addressing style. Implicit endpoints retain full verification. - Save a versioned child-snapshot receipt only after canonical crypto, manifest and file restoration succeed and a second HEAD confirms the same strong ETag and size. - Bind reuse to the complete snapshot reference, key material, child lineage, source operation and storage namespace. Require a fresh strong HEAD and canonical validation that the current secret provider can unwrap the saved snapshot key. - Keep current directory/Git capture and source-owner checks on every invocation. Read-only verifier callers do not write checkpoints. - Merge checkpoint metadata under a short row lock without changing parent journal hashes, snapshot retention or update timestamps. Bound reads and writes. Lock timeouts, statement timeouts, deadlocks and serialization conflicts are safe cache misses. Other errors remain fatal. - Extend real PostgreSQL/Git/archive tests with process death, scratch removal, resume, changed bindings and single publication. ## Verification - Baseline RED: two import invocations read each child twice. With durable receipts, each child is read once across both invocations. - Real process regression passed on the final rebased head: SIGKILL the owned importer after one checkpoint, delete all scratch, and resume in a new Node process. It retains the same operation and snapshot, reads each child once across both processes, and records one publication. - 53 focused cases passed in 104.86 seconds on the final production bytes before rebase. They cover existing nested/cohort behavior, namespace identity, changed source/reference/key/lineage/ETag, unknown proof versions, weak validators and bounded row contention. - After clean rebase and stronger scratch/snapshot assertions, the real process case passed again in 18.54 seconds. Server TypeScript, module boundaries and diff checks passed on final head `9da68ee7ce4a778201ef85e21a11c49eeea7bc16`. Required CI supplies final-head broad coverage. - The initial restricted-network dependency setup failed; unchanged preflight passed with normal network access. Initial TypeScript failures in test pipe assertions were corrected. No failed attempt is counted as a pass. - Review found a missing current-master-key check. A real restart regression with all child checkpoints complete reproduced unsafe publication after switching to a different valid master key. Follow-up `7ea92c2abd9ffdb2e7dd81cecf62c8fc7a6e74a5` delegates to the canonical snapshot-key owner before both durable and in-memory cache hits. - The fixed process regressions passed 2/2. Ten key-authority and existing identity/source guard cases passed. The wrong-key process now refuses with zero additional child payload GETs, no publication, and unchanged original journal/snapshot rows. Server typecheck, module boundaries and diff checks passed on the follow-up. - Review also found that transient database failures could make the optional checkpoint cache stop a valid import. Read and save now fall back only for SQLSTATE `55P03`, `57014`, `40P01`, and `40001`. Connection loss, identity changes, crypto failures, programming errors and cancellation remain fatal. Reads use a read-only transaction with one-second lock and eight-second statement limits. - The checkpoint database-fault regression failed two cases before the fix. All four recoverable import cases then passed. The final selected run passed 21 cases, including fatal-error and cancellation controls, real row contention, both process-restart cases and key/identity guards. Server typecheck and boundaries passed. Fault injection is limited to the checkpoint database boundary; the importer, PostgreSQL, Git, archives, storage and publication remain real. - Latest master was merged without rewriting published history. Six real import/process-restart cases passed again on final head `8c8e4213a680ebb5c8d6864416bc3a4f271e1e76` in 38.03 seconds. [Required CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42658248222) finished with 54 successful checks and four intentional skips; Snyk passed. [Fresh review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20311#issuecomment-6745354381) is 5/5 with all four threads addressed and resolved. Hosted verification after normal release delivery remains pending. ## Risks - A stale receipt could skip authentication of a different object. Complete reference/lineage/namespace binding, fresh strong HEAD and row-locked save validation prevent that reuse. Missing or unsupported hints trigger full verification. - Mutable local files can change between attempts. Their source locks and fresh captures remain required; a checkpoint never certifies current local bytes. - Checkpoint persistence can contend with other snapshot owners. It has one-second lock and eight-second statement limits; the four classified transient SQL errors retain the normal fully verified path. Other database errors stop the import so lost source ownership cannot be hidden. - No schema, archive format, public API or saved-run identity change. Older snapshots without receipts remain readable and get full verification. Existing data and recovery obligations stay intact. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`), with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. Context-window size is not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
0cf70c9d0c |
fix(chat): tell overviews to state when the picture is from (#20301)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People ask the CEO chat agent for a quick picture of what the company is doing now > - Such a picture is only useful when the person knows how current it is > - The chat guidance asks for accurate status, but it does not ask for a time > - A live overview said "right now" and gave no time, so the person could not tell when it was observed > - This pull request adds one guidance sentence: state the picture's time as a UTC clock time, from the latest message timestamp > - The benefit is that overviews tell the person when their information is from ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19614 **What happened** A person asked the chat agent "Give me a quick picture of what the company is doing right now." The agent read agents, projects, tasks and approvals and gave a correct summary. The summary did not say when it was observed. The only time word was "right now". **Expected behavior** An overview of current work states when the picture is from, as a clock time. The native prompt already lists each new comment with its timestamp, so the agent has a time it can use. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a chat with the CEO agent in a company that has active, blocked and done tasks. 2. Ask "Give me a quick picture of what the company is doing right now." 3. The reply summarizes the work but gives no observation time. ## What Changed - `AGENT_CHAT_DIRECTIVE` status-update guidance: when the agent describes what the company, a project or agents are doing now, it states a UTC clock time, such as "As of 15:26 UTC". It uses the latest message's timestamp unless a record it read gives a later time. - A regression test checks that the directive contains this guidance. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-list.test.ts` passes (includes the prompt-size limits). - The chat-catalog eval `activity.company-overview` now grades a real observation time (stacked eval PR on `chat-eval/master-candidate`). This fix is cherry-picked onto that eval branch for the next live run. No live run has used it yet. ## Risks - Low risk. This is one guidance sentence. Overviews get one extra clause with a time. - The time is the message time, not a server clock read. Reads happen seconds after the message, so the difference is small. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
12523fb677 |
fix(chat): send a task whose automatic recovery stopped to the person's Retry (#20306)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A person asks the chat agent (the controller) to act on tasks that other agents own > - When a task's automatic recovery stops, for example after three runner losses, the task is blocked and the person gets a Retry control on it. Retry rechecks the task's gates and keeps the failed attempt's evidence > - The blocker told every reader "Try again or send a new message to continue". A controller read that as its own instruction. It found that Retry is board-only, then resumed the task with a comment and reassigned the task to itself > - That skips the assignee's budget and hold gates and hides the failed-run Retry from the person > - This pull request names Retry as the person's control in the blocker text, and tells the controller to point the person to it > - The benefit is that "try that task again" leads to the supported, gated Retry instead of an agent takeover ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20270 (automatic recovery after a lost local runner) **What happened?** In the chat eval `chat-features.runner-opencode.local.recovery.retry-exhausted`, a person asked the CEO agent to "Try the website task again" after the website task's native recovery was exhausted. The agent read the task's `executionBlocker` (`canRetry: true`, nextAction "... Try again or send a new message to continue once the previous execution has stopped."). It found that `POST /api/issues/{id}/retry` is board-only. It then posted a `resume: true` comment, which moved the task from blocked to todo, and reassigned the task to itself to re-run it. The task lost its failed-run Retry control, and the original assignee's gates were not checked. **Expected behavior** The agent links the original task, says why it stopped, and tells the person to use Retry there. It takes the work over only when the person explicitly asks for that. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let a native run exhaust its automatic recovery (for example, three runner losses). 2. In the controller chat, ask it to try that task again. 3. The agent comments to resume the task, or reassigns it, instead of pointing to Retry. ## What Changed - `execution-blocker.ts`: the text that is added when a person can retry is now `EXECUTION_BLOCKER_PERSON_RETRY_ACTION`: "A person can use Retry on this task, or send it a new message, to continue once the previous execution has stopped. Agents cannot retry it for them." - `agent-conversations.ts`: a new chat guidance paragraph. When another task's automatic recovery has stopped, the supported next step is the person's Retry on that task. The controller links the task and explains why it stopped. It does not reassign the task, change its status, comment on it to resume it, or create a replacement task, unless the person explicitly asks it to take the work over. ## Verification - `board-access-denial.test.ts`: the directive contains the new rule. - `execution-blocker-read.test.ts`: a retryable blocker's nextAction ends with the person-Retry text. - 54 tests pass locally for these two files. - Paid live run of `recovery.retry-exhausted` with this change and #20270 on the eval branch: the run ID will be added below. ## Risks - Low. Only text changes. Any UI that shows the blocker's nextAction shows the new sentence instead of "Try again or send a new message ...". - No schema or saved-state change. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
90404d2033 |
perf(run-logs): read object-store log tails in parallel, once, and cached (#20284)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Hosted instances keep run logs in object storage as a journal of
content-addressed segments and binary index nodes
> - The task chat reads the last 32 KB of a run's log, aligned to a
record, to show what the agent did
> - A run that flushes often has many small segments. The tail read
fetched each object one after another, and record alignment walked the
index a second time
> - On staging, one tail read took 11–12 s, and the task chat waited for
it (see #20277)
> - This pull request reads the tail in parallel, in one pass, and
caches the objects that cannot change
> - The benefit is that the first tail read is about 6.6x faster, and
repeated reads (live polling, reopening a task) use only the mutable
head
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
`GET
/api/heartbeat-runs/:runId/log?offset=…&limitBytes=32000&alignStartToRecord=true`
took 11–12 s on staging for a 400 KB object-store log. Without alignment
it took 6.1 s. A read from offset 0 took 2.0 s. The task chat waited for
this read before it showed the run's output.
**Expected behavior**
A 32 KB tail read returns in well under a second, and a repeated read of
the same tail costs about one storage round trip.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Use object-backed run logs (`s3_segments`).
2. Write a run log in many small flushes, as a live run does.
3. Read its last 32 KB with `alignStartToRecord=true`, and count the
object GETs and how many run at the same time.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
099adb2728 |
fix(recovery): settle a remote workspace save that stopped without finishing (#20291)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Native runs in remote sandboxes save the workspace as snapshots.
Each save is a `workspace_operations` row with phase
`remote_workspace_snapshot`
> - The ownership registry lists that kind as in-progress work, but it
had no settle step
> - When a restart cut off a failing final save, the row stayed
`running` after its invocations had all stopped and its run had ended
> - The retained-source fallback refuses while any workspace operation
is running, so a task whose saved files could not be verified could
never continue from its last save
> - This pull request lets the ownership reconciler settle that row as
failed
> - The benefit is that the automatic fallback can continue such a task
without any user action
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A native run in a remote sandbox finished its turn. Its final workspace
save failed because the sandbox disk was full ("No space left on device"
in the snapshot copy). A graceful restart then interrupted the retry.
The run ended as `native_workspace_sync_out_retry_exhausted`. Its
`remote_workspace_snapshot` row kept `status: running` for six days,
with `saveWork: { activeIds: [], unknown: false, quiescedAt: <time> }`
and `exportCleanup: { state: "pending" }`. The retained-source fallback
checked the task and refused with `workspace_operation_running`, so the
task stayed blocked.
**Expected behavior**
A save with no active or unknown invocation, whose run is terminal, is
finished work. The reconciler must mark it failed, so the fallback can
continue from the last committed save. A save that might still be
running must stay untouched.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a native task in a remote sandbox. Make its final save fail, then
restart the server during the retry, so the save's work is quiesced and
the operation stays `running`.
2. Let the task's recovery refuse with an unverifiable-source failure
(for example `allocation_ownership_ambiguous`).
3. The retained-source fallback refuses with
`workspace_operation_running` on every check, and the task never
continues.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
ef2b8d5324 |
fix(issues): make every Retry start work or say why (#20283)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - When a task's run fails, the board recovers it with a Retry button, so that button must either start work or say why it did not > - An audit of every Retry-type button found three gaps. The task Retry shown during a scheduled retry's countdown returned "accepted" but changed nothing. A stale Retry looked like success in the Inbox. "Retry now" skipped the task's read and change checks, so a member who cannot see a private task could start its retry > - This pull request makes the task Retry start a scheduled retry immediately, makes every Retry that did not start work say why, and gives "Retry now" the same authorization as the task Retry > - The benefit is that no Retry click silently does nothing ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19831. The board reported a dead Retry button. A read-only audit of every Retry button confirmed: - **Task Retry during a scheduled retry was a no-op.** `TaskInterruptionPresentation.canRetry` is true in `retry_scheduled`, so `ExecutionBlockerNotice` shows Retry. `requestTaskRetry` treats `scheduled_retry` as busy and inserts a `coalesced` wake pointing at that run. `resumeTaskRetry` reads only `deferred_issue_execution`, and dispatch uses coalesced user wakes only to carry comments. Nothing promoted the run: the API answered 202 `accepted: true` and the countdown did not change. - **A stale Retry looked like success.** `accepted: false, stale: true` comes back as HTTP 200. The Inbox ignored `accepted` and opened the task as if work had started. The task page showed no reason. - **"Retry now" checked less than the task Retry.** It ran only `assertBoard` and `getAccessibleResource`, skipping `assertIssueReadAllowed` and `issue:mutate`. A company member who cannot read a private task could promote that task's scheduled retry. - **"Retry now" said nothing for some outcomes.** It toasted only `promoted` and `gate_suppressed`. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/task-retry.ts`: when the Retry coalesces into the task's latest run and that run is `scheduled_retry` (with no other Retry already active), the receipt returns `scheduledRetryRunId`. - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: - `POST /issues/:id/retry` then promotes that run through the existing `retryScheduledRetryNow`, the same path "Retry now" uses. It logs `issue.scheduled_retry_retry_now` with `source: "task_retry"` and returns `scheduledRetry: { outcome, message }`. - `POST /issues/:id/scheduled-retry/retry-now` now runs `assertIssueReadAllowed` and `decideIssueAccess("issue:mutate")`, matching `/retry`. A private task the member cannot read now answers 404. - `ui/src/hooks/useTaskRetry.ts`: new `taskRetryNotStartedReason`. When a Retry did not start work (stale, or a scheduled retry that is gate-suppressed, waiting, or gone), the hook returns that reason as its error. `ExecutionBlockerNotice` and `StalledDependencyNotice` already display it. - `ui/src/pages/Inbox.tsx`: a task Retry that did not start work shows the reason in the error toast and does not navigate. - `ui/src/hooks/useRetryNowMutation.ts` and `IssueScheduledRetryCard.tsx`: every "Retry now" outcome now shows its headline and message, including `no_scheduled_retry` on the card. - `ui/src/api/issues.ts`: `retryTask`'s response type includes `scheduledRetry`. ## Verification Red/green (each new test fails against master and passes with this PR): - `server/src/__tests__/issue-scheduled-retry-routes.test.ts`: - "starts a scheduled retry now when the task Retry is clicked during its countdown": 202 with `scheduledRetry.outcome: "promoted"`, the same run becomes `queued`, and no second retry run is created. - "refuses Retry now on a private task the member cannot see, like the task Retry": on master "Retry now" answers 200 `promoted`; now both routes answer 404 and the run stays `scheduled_retry`. - The seed now adds the board user's membership, which the stricter route needs. All 33 tests pass. - `ui/src/hooks/useTaskRetry.test.tsx`: a replaced attempt, a gate-held scheduled retry and a waiting scheduled retry each show their reason; a promoted one shows nothing extra. - `ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx`: an Inbox Retry that did not start work (stale, or gate-held) toasts the reason and does not navigate. - `ui/src/components/IssueScheduledRetryCard.test.tsx`: "explains when there was no scheduled retry left to start". Other Retry buttons: the chat failed-run Retry already reports stopped and failed retries (`agents.test.ts`). Agent lifecycle "Retry now" and cost "Retry accounting" start no task work and already surface their API errors. Regression and static checks: - UI: 7 files, 168 passed. Server: task-retry and scheduled-retry suites, 149 passed. `issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` passed. - `maintenance-server-routes.test.ts` "assembled maintenance server production wiring" fails identically on master on this Mac (`ensure-build-deps`). - `tsc --noEmit` passes for `server` and `ui/src`. `pnpm check:token-gates` is clean. ## Risks - A task Retry during a scheduled retry now starts the run immediately, through the existing "Retry now" promotion gates (pause, budget, cleanup waits). A gate that holds it is reported, not bypassed. - "Retry now" is stricter: a member without read or change access to the task gets 404 or 403, as on `/retry`. - No schema change. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
5c73633a8f |
fix(workspaces): preserve remote recovery holds during online import (#20298)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Online workspace import preserves old controller-local files while unrelated remote work continues. > - A task can have an old local checkout and a separate durable remote workspace. > - A terminal remote run can retain a file-recovery hold on that task. > - The legacy source checker rejects remote references, so that hold blocks independent local imports. > - This pull request proves that the hold belongs only to the separate remote source and fences its finalizer during import. > - Old files can migrate while the remote recovery obligation stays intact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19873 and #19854 for the existing cohort and source-verification paths. Searched related online migration and remote recovery PRs; no duplicate fix was found. **What happened?** Online import rejects a legacy Git checkout with `online_workspace_source_scope_unproven` when a same-task failed run has a prepared reference to a separate durable remote workspace. The legacy run reader rejects remote references before the hold can be classified. **Expected behavior** Independent local files can import under their source fences. The separate remote workspace, dirty writer, allocation, accepted result and recovery hold must stay intact. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create related local Git workspaces. 2. Record a terminal failed native run and an exhausted file-recovery hold for a separate durable remote workspace on the same task. 3. Import the local leaf online. The old checker refuses before capture. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master at `052c638b519ebb15f81e4fcd1a96adf6cd3b2f10`. **Deployment mode** Managed server with PostgreSQL and remote Runner execution. ## What Changed - Add a distinct remote-only preservation proof. Keep remote runs excluded from legacy export sources. - Use the canonical source inspector and prepared-reference matcher. Bind the run, finalizer, action, task, accepted result, authority, allocation and prior committed snapshot. - Acquire the held run's finalizer fence through the existing sorted lock path. Existing source-proof reinspection rejects changes before publication. - Preserve previous-release prepared references with an older baseline snapshot. Do not require that snapshot's epoch or source run to equal the current run. - Add real PostgreSQL import, authenticated cold restore, preservation, refusal, lock-contention and publication-race regressions. Document the behavior. ## Verification - Genuine baseline failure on unchanged product: the real importer refuses with `online_workspace_source_scope_unproven`. - Final focused regression file: 23 tests passed in 13.19 seconds through the canonical isolated PostgreSQL wrapper on Node 24.22.2. - 24 existing affected migration/recovery tests passed against the same final production bytes. Another 83 tests were explicitly excluded by the focused selection; no full-suite pass is claimed. - The positive imports local bytes, confirms the remote finalizer fence is held during upload, leaves all remote records unchanged, parks the original repository and authenticates/restores the archive. - Refusal and race cases cover malformed, foreign, same-local and mixed references; active owners/writers; changed allocation, result, task, action, authority and baseline; and finalizer contention. - Server TypeScript check, module-boundary check and `git diff --check` passed. - An intermediate run had one incorrect assertion that expected an explicit empty legacy-source array. The canonical journal omits that empty field. The final assertion accepts absence and still forbids any exported remote source. Final relevant results are 23 new plus 24 existing passes, rather than a claim that the earlier invocation passed in full. - Required CI passed on head `6a278e717db2b5f614b0a595f99bfd0fb5430227`: 55 successful checks and 4 intentional skips. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42650025033). Greptile reviewed that head at 5/5 with no actionable findings or open inline/review comments. Hosted continuation remains pending normal delivery. ## Risks - A false disjointness proof could admit an unsafe local import. Strict company/task/source binding, the canonical inspector, finalizer fencing and publication revalidation retain refusal on uncertainty. - This does not recover or settle remote files. Dirty authority and the original recovery obligation remain unchanged. - No schema, public API, archive format or saved-run identity changes. Existing persisted state carries forward. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`), with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. The runtime does not expose the context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
d10c6e0e8b |
fix(chat): hold a chat message at the agent's daily limit instead of dropping it (#20292)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent Chat sends each person's message to the conversation agent through a durable outbox (`deliverConversationComments`). The outbox keys each wake receipt as `conversation-comment:<commentId>`. > - The outbox treats any receipt with that key as delivered. Queue admission writes a `skipped` receipt when the agent reached its daily run or cost limit. > - So a chat message sent after the agent used its daily allowance was consumed silently. No run started, the chat showed nothing, and nothing resumed it. > - A person's message must never be silently dropped. The daily limit is an operator control, so the message must wait honestly, not bypass the limit. > - This pull request makes the outbox hold the message at the daily limit, like it already does for a paused agent, and resume it when the limit resets. > - The benefit is that a chat message at the daily limit is saved, shown with its reason, and sent automatically at 00:00 UTC. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. Inline bug report: **What happened** In a chat eval, the conversation agent (CEO) had `maxDailyRuns: 3`. After three chat turns and a separate failed-model phase on another agent, the person sent a fourth message. The comment was saved (POST 201), but no CEO run started. The conversation stayed `active` with no `executionRunId`. The ownership reconciler later reported `I7_visible_next_action`. The server log shows no wake error. Queue admission had written a `skipped` receipt (`heartbeat.daily_run_limit`) under the outbox key, so the outbox counted the message as delivered. **Expected behavior** A chat message that reaches the agent's daily limit is not consumed. It stays saved, the chat shows why it waits, and it is sent automatically when the limit resets. The daily limit still applies: the message does not start a run early. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Set a conversation agent's `runtimeConfig.heartbeat.maxDailyRuns` to N. 2. Send N chat messages and let each turn finish. 3. Send one more chat message. 4. See that no run starts, the chat shows no waiting state, and the message is never answered (a `skipped` wake receipt with reason `heartbeat.daily_run_limit` exists for `conversation-comment:<id>`). ## What Changed - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: add `conversationDeliveryHold`, which applies the same daily run/cost limit check as queue admission. The outbox returns `deferred` at the limit and writes no receipt, so the message stays owed. It reports the next UTC day start through a new optional `onDeferredDeadline` option. - `server/src/services/recovery/service.ts`: stranded-work recovery passes its `onDeferredDeadline` to the outbox, so the held message is retried when the limit resets. - `server/src/services/heartbeat/queue.ts`: if the limit is reached while an outbox wake is in admission (a race), admission throws a 409 with `reason: heartbeat.daily_*` for `conversation-comment:` keys instead of writing a `skipped` receipt. The outbox already maps a matching 409 to `deferred`. Other wakes keep the current skip behavior. - `server/src/routes/issues.ts` (`GET /issues/:id/queued-comments`): when a chat has no queue receipt but has messages held by the daily limit, return them as a `deferred` queue with `executionWait` (reason and message). Edit, send and discard stay off because the outbox owns delivery. - `ui/src/components/task-chat/TaskChatQueuedMessages.tsx`: show the `executionWait` message for such an outbox-held queue (no queue id and no target run). Receipt-backed queues keep the current behavior and do not duplicate the task status. - Tests: three real-database tests in `agent-conversation-delivery.test.ts` (hold and resume after the limit resets, recovery deadline, and a limit reached during real `heartbeatService.wakeup` admission) and one UI test. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversation-delivery.test.ts`: 10 passed. Without the source change, the three new tests fail (`expected 'delivered' to be 'deferred'`; the real queue path writes the skipped receipt). - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-recovery-conversations.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-undispatched-execution-wait.test.ts src/services/heartbeat/queue.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-chat-messages.test.ts`: 215 passed. - `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/task-chat/TaskChatQueuedMessages.test.tsx`: 36 passed. - `pnpm exec tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json`: clean. `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs`: clean. - Manual: give a chat agent `maxDailyRuns: 1`, send two messages. The second message shows in the queued messages bar with "<agent> reached its daily run limit. Your message is saved and sends automatically when the limit resets at 00:00 UTC." ## Risks - Behavior change for chat only: a chat message at the daily limit now waits in the outbox instead of being consumed. It is sent after 00:00 UTC. If an operator raises the limit, the message is sent on the next recovery pass for that chat; the UI message does not promise an earlier send. - Saved state from the previous release: no persisted shape changes. Messages that an earlier release already consumed with a `skipped` receipt stay consumed. They are not replayed later, which avoids sending old messages without notice. - The queued-comments read adds one agent read and one daily-limit count for a chat with no queue receipt. This is the same query that admission runs. - The recovery deadline is in-process; instance-sleep scheduling does not get a new deadline from this change. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), agentic coding with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
87e755ce8e |
fix(recovery): verify cross-task warm sandbox handoffs and say plainly when recovery refuses (#20282)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Native runs in remote sandboxes keep a warm sandbox and hand it to
the next run through a chain of reusable leases
> - Acquisition binds that chain to the execution workspace, so a task
can inherit a warm sandbox from an earlier task in the same workspace
> - Saved-files recovery verifies the same chain, but it required every
earlier lease, run, and finalization to belong to the recovering task
> - A valid chain that started with another task therefore always failed
with `allocation_ownership_ambiguous`. That code is `service_required`,
so recovery stopped after one attempt, and each board Retry repeated the
same refusal
> - This pull request makes the chain check match the acquisition rule,
and it checks each predecessor against its own task
> - It also makes the board say plainly when recovery refuses the saved
state, because "failed after automatic retries" was not true and Retry
looked like it did nothing
> - The benefit is that a task blocked with "Saving the agent's files
failed after automatic retries" can recover its saved files, and a
refusal that Retry cannot change is shown with its reason
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A native run in a remote sandbox finished its turn, and its result was
accepted. The copy of its files back to the host failed and was
scheduled to retry. A graceful server restart then interrupted the
retry, so the run settled with
`native_workspace_sync_out_retry_exhausted`, and the task became
blocked. Every saved-files recovery generation then failed on its first
attempt with `allocation_ownership_ambiguous` (`service_required`). The
board showed "Saving the agent's files failed after automatic retries.
Retry to try again". Each Retry replaced the generation
(`issue.recovery_generation_replaced`), and the new generation failed in
the same way within one second. To the user, Retry did nothing. The
sandbox lease chain was valid: same agent, same execution workspace,
same sandbox, and matching handoff receipts on all eight leases. But its
first three leases belonged to an earlier task in the same workspace.
**Expected behavior**
Recovery must accept a warm sandbox chain that acquisition accepted.
Acquisition binds reuse to the execution workspace, and it requires the
same task only when the lease has no workspace. Recovery must check each
predecessor run and finalization against that predecessor's own task. It
must still refuse a chain whose records disagree or that has no shared
workspace.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a native task in a remote sandbox with `reuse_by_environment`,
with an execution workspace that another task also uses.
2. Run the other task in the same workspace first, so the sandbox lease
is handed from that task to this one.
3. Make the last run of the second task fail to copy its files back (for
example, restart the server during the copy-back retry).
4. Wait for saved-files recovery, or click Retry. Recovery fails with
`allocation_ownership_ambiguous`, and Retry repeats the failure.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at
|
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
052c638b51 |
fix(environments): honor stopped-task proof after warm preparation (#20289)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A warm plugin Runner retains its task for later runs. > - A follow-up can find that the retained task has stopped. > - The resume path already asks settle to check status before it sends stop. > - A saved startup marker disabled this order, even after warm preparation had finished. > - This pull request applies the same stop-proof check to all observed-stop releases. > - The next run skips a repeated stop when status proves both execution and required preparation have stopped. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #20224 Refs #20203 ## What Changed - Remove the startup-marker exclusion from the existing status-first path. Keep the existing shared confirmation check. It still requires `preparationStopped: true` for startup work. - Keep stop followed by status when the first status lacks the required proof. Keep the startup drain, credential writeback, complete, and cleanup failure handling. - Add retained-task coverage with the startup metadata that warm preparation saves. Cover a startup cleanup whose first status lacks preparation proof. - Update the plugin task lifecycle contract. ## Verification - Local macOS, source base `3e8744fa91`: from `server`, `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/environment-task-runtime.test.ts src/__tests__/plugin-warm-tasks.integration.test.ts src/__tests__/plugin-task-credential-writeback.test.ts` passed: 3 files, 82 tests. The integration tests use real embedded PostgreSQL and controlled plugin results. - After restoring the fix, the two affected files passed again: 73 tests. - Independent parent verification on commit `19f720ff68`: the two files filtered to the changed startup-proof and retained-task cases passed (4 tests). Independent source review found no actionable issue. - Baseline proof: with only the source condition restored to upstream, the new retained-task test with saved startup metadata fails because it sees an extra `stop`. The case without that metadata passes. The source fix was then restored. - The retained-task regression asserts exactly `environmentResumeLease`, `status`, `complete`, and `environmentAcquireLease`, with both task operations bound to the old task. The startup test also proves that missing preparation proof sends `stop` and a second `status`. - Test setup: `node scripts/agent-preflight.mjs --skip-rust-debug --explain` installed dependencies, then stopped because Cargo is unavailable on this Mac. Initial test collection failed because the plugin SDK output was absent. `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` built that required dependency and the shared package; the targeted test run then passed. - Standard Greptile reviewed commit `19f720ff686058b4dd6b34f27cdfb9c8ff60e50a` at 5/5 with no review threads. [Review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20289#issuecomment-6743829614). - Full local checks were not run, as requested. [GitHub PR workflow 42644023868](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42644023868) passed on final commit `19f720ff686058b4dd6b34f27cdfb9c8ff60e50a`. It supplied broad typecheck, build, and test coverage. The separate Snyk status passed. Optional Storybook checks were skipped. - The change removes one provider stop call on the reported path. The issue's measured eight calls would become seven if other calls stay the same. The earlier five-call target is not claimed. No deployed latency measurement is claimed. ## Risks - A provider that cannot prove preparation stopped still gets stop and status. That fallback can cost one extra status call, as the existing status-first contract already allows. - A status failure keeps cleanup pending and blocks replacement. No termination proof or credential handoff is skipped. - No schema, API, dependency, or timer change. No added work on successful task reuse or ordinary task dispatch. - Live provider acceptance remains unrun. The local evidence checks orchestration and stop-proof handling. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository inspection, shell tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
dc9ad17515 |
perf(storage): time workspace snapshot save and restore steps and count storage retries (#20280)
## Thinking Path
- Cloud durable storage is a major source of failures and slowness on
staging. For example, a staging task failed when saving files after
automatic retries.
- Before measuring or fixing it, we need to see where storage time goes.
Today a saved-workspace restore before the turn appears only inside the
coarse `workspace_environment_realize` phase.
- After the turn, the save's encrypt, put, verify and multipart throttle
backoff have no timing at all. Only `captureMs`, `transferMs`,
`verifyMs`, `uploadMs` and `publishMs` exist, in `saveTiming`.
- Storage retries happen in the SDK and in the multipart uploader,
invisibly.
- This adds the measurement first, so the storage-mode chaos waves
(MinIO behind a fault proxy) can report save and restore p50/p95 and
point at the dominant wait.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Durable-storage saves and restores were opaque in the run log and save
timing. A slow or repeatedly retried storage call could not be told
apart from slow capture, encryption or sandbox work.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a remote task with S3-compatible durable storage, so it saves
after the turn and restores on the next run.
2. Inspect the run log and the `remote_workspace_snapshot` operation's
`saveTiming`. The restore's download, decrypt and verify, and the save's
put, verify and throttle backoff, have no timing.
**Expected behavior**
Each storage step has a duration, and storage request retries and
backoff are counted.
## What Changed
- `server/src/storage/request-stats.ts` (new): an async-local collector
of storage request statistics. Counts only:
- `requests`, `attempts` and `failedRequests`;
- `retryDelayMs` (SDK waits);
- `parts`, `throttled` and `backoffMs` (the multipart uploader's waits).
- `server/src/storage/s3-failure.ts`: `withS3FailureDiagnostics`, which
wraps every S3 send, records each request's SDK `$metadata.attempts` and
`totalRetryDelay`, on success and on failure.
- `server/src/storage/s3-multipart.ts`: records each uploaded part and
each resend wait, flagged throttled when the backend returned 503, 429
or SlowDown.
- `server/src/services/remote-workspace-snapshot-storage.ts`:
- Each step is a `storage.snapshot.*` run phase:
- save: `prior_attempts`, `encrypt`, `digest`, `put`, `verify`;
- restore: `download`, `decrypt`, `verify_plaintext`, `publish`.
- A caller can pass a `timing` record that receives the step durations,
the bytes and the request statistics.
- `server/src/services/remote-workspaces.ts`:
- The save passes a timing record, kept in `saveTiming.storage`.
- The sandbox unpack during a restore is its own phase,
`workspace.snapshot.sandbox_restore`.
- `execution-preparation-timing.ts`: the new phase names.
- `doc/run-log-events.md`: a new "Durable storage timing" section.
Because the restore runs inside run preparation, its steps of 50 ms or
more become `run.performance.span` rows with no extra plumbing. This is
run-log and instance-database data only; there's no Telemetry change.
## Verification
- `server`: `storage-s3-multipart-backoff`, `storage-s3-multipart`,
`storage-s3-multipart-throttle`, `storage-s3-failure-diagnostics`,
`remote-workspace-snapshot-storage` and `execution-preparation-timing`
tests: 86 passed. They include:
- collected stats for a throttled multipart upload: 12 requests, 7
failed, 7 throttled, 35.5 s backoff and 3 parts;
- a save and restore that fill every step duration and the byte count.
- `remote-workspaces.integration.test.ts`: 112 passed. Its `saveTiming`
assertion now includes `storage`.
- Server typecheck: no errors in the touched files.
## Risks
- **Overhead:** one async-local lookup per S3 request, plus timestamps
per snapshot step.
- **Collector scope:** the collector only exists inside a snapshot save
or restore. Other storage callers are unaffected; they record nothing.
- **`saveTiming`** gains a `storage` object. Readers that compare it
exactly (one test, updated) will see the new field.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`, Anthropic), 1M context window, tool
use and code execution, via Claude Code.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
3ef45fdd92 |
fix(recovery): let a new task wait for its manually paused assignee (#20281)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A person can pause an agent. Tasks assigned to a paused agent wait until the person resumes it. > - Stranded-task recovery looks for assigned work that cannot continue and moves it to `blocked` for the board. > - A task created for a manually paused agent has no run yet. Recovery saw an assignee that is not invokable and moved the new task to `blocked` a few seconds after creation. > - The person paused the agent on purpose. The blocked task and its "the board must choose the next action" comment fight that decision, and the person must unblock the task by hand after resume. > - This pull request lets new `todo` work with no run wait while a manual pause lasts. The existing assigned-todo dispatch starts it when the agent is resumed. > - The benefit is that work queued for a paused agent starts on resume, as the pause promises. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** A chat evaluation pauses an agent (Morgan) and then runs `paperclipai issue create ... --assignee-agent-id <Morgan> --status todo`. The CLI returns the task with status `todo`. Within about five seconds the task changes to `blocked`, with the system comment "Paperclip cannot safely continue automatic recovery because the original assignee is not invokable. The source assignment is unchanged and the board must choose the next action." The server log shows only the expected 409 "Agent is not invokable" for the assignment wake. **Expected behavior** The task stays `todo` while the person keeps the agent paused. When the person resumes the agent, the task starts once. A comment and a `blocked` status are not added. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Pause an agent from its page. 2. Create a `todo` task assigned to that agent. 3. Wait for the stranded-task recovery sweep. See that the task is `blocked` with the comment above. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/recovery/service.ts`: in `reconcileStrandedAssignedIssues`, skip a `todo` task with no run when its assignee is paused with a `manual` lifecycle hold. The existing rule above it already skips work whose run the pause cancelled. Other pause causes, such as a budget hold, keep the existing escalation. - `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-paused-assignee-new-task.test.ts`: a PostgreSQL test. The task stays `todo` with no comment and no run during two recovery sweeps. After resume it starts exactly once and finishes. A budget-held assignee still escalates. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-paused-assignee-new-task.test.ts`: 2 passed. Without the fix, the first test fails with `expected 'blocked' to be 'todo'`. - `npx vitest run src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-refused-assignment-wake.test.ts`: passed. - `src/__tests__/issue-tree-pause-resume-run.test.ts` had timing failures on this low-memory machine both with and without this change (different tests each time). Those tests do not pause agents, so this change does not reach them. CI runs them on this branch. ## Risks - Low risk. The skip needs all of these: the agent is paused, it has a `manual` hold, the task is `todo`, and the task has no run. Work that already ran keeps the current rules. - No persisted state changes shape. State saved by the previous release carries forward: a task that the previous release already moved to `blocked` stays `blocked`. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Related: #20143 (a pause's stop never blocks the task behind an incident), #9998 (open: reject paused agents as assignment targets). 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
6db0bb9776 |
fix(chat): tell agents which CLI commands a person runs in their own terminal (#20267)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People talk to agents in chat. The chat guidance in `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts` tells every chat agent how to answer. > - People often ask a chat agent for a terminal command: create a task, download a plan, inspect or stop a run, or point the CLI at a company. > - The guidance did not name the Paperclip CLI. Agents guessed: they did the work themselves, wrote `curl`, used placeholder company ids, or invented an API address. > - The person then has to fix the command, or gets a file in the agent's workspace instead of on their own machine. > - This pull request adds one guidance paragraph. It names the supported `npx paperclipai` commands, asks for real ids from the conversation, and asks for the person's own Paperclip URL as a placeholder. > - The benefit is a command the person can run as it is, with the right company and the right actor. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** Three chat evaluations (cli-operations) asked for terminal commands. "Show me how to point my terminal at the Acorn company." got `context set` with `<acorn-company-id>` and an invented `http://localhost:3100`, although the agent can read its company id. "Download this task's plan from the terminal as a file." got a file saved in the agent's own workspace and an attachment link, with no terminal command. "Show me the command to inspect Morgan's last run and stop it if it is still running." got `curl` with environment variables that exist only in the agent's runtime. **Expected behavior** The agent gives `npx paperclipai` commands that the person runs in their own terminal. The commands use real ids that the agent can read in the conversation. The Paperclip address is the placeholder `<your Paperclip URL>`. The agent says which commands need a board user. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a chat with an agent. 2. Send "Download this task's plan from the terminal as a file." 3. See that the agent saves the file itself and gives no terminal command. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: add a chat guidance paragraph for terminal and CLI requests. It names the supported commands for task creation, document download, run read and cancel, and context profiles. It asks for one command per line, real ids, and the `<your Paperclip URL>` placeholder. - `cli/src/__tests__/chat-cli-guidance.test.ts`: a new test reads the guidance and resolves every `npx paperclipai` command against the registered commander commands. It fails on an unknown command, flag or missing argument. - `server/src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts`: check that the paragraph is in the directive and in the chat prompt. ## Verification - `cd cli && npx vitest run src/__tests__/chat-cli-guidance.test.ts`: 3 passed. - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts src/__tests__/board-access-denial.test.ts`: 80 passed. - The chat evaluations `cli-operations.choose-cli-context`, `export-document-cli` and `inspect-run-cli` run with this commit on an evaluation branch. Results are added in a comment. ## Risks - Low risk. The change adds prompt text and tests. Routes, permissions and responses do not change. - The chat prompt is about 300 words longer. - If a CLI command or flag changes, the new CLI test fails until the guidance changes too. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Related: #20029 (terminal sign-in guidance in the API catalog). 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Pavel-GuseynovandClaude Opus 5.5
|
4d297b998a |
fix(server): give remote MCP tool calls a 30 second default deadline and record stream failure evidence (#19768)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The tool gateway calls remote MCP servers over Streamable HTTP, and a server can answer `tools/call` with a `text/event-stream` body > - Such a server can send progress notifications before the response, and a slow tool can take more than 10 seconds > - The gateway aborts a remote MCP `tools/call` that uses the default deadline after 10 seconds, the general tool default > - When the call fails, the call evidence does not show how far the stream got, or whether the cause was the deadline or a broken transport > - This pull request gives remote MCP calls a default deadline of 30 seconds, the default response timeout of the remote HTTP client, and records the failure cause and the stream progress > - The benefit is that slow remote tools complete, and an operator can tell a deadline from a peer reset in the call evidence ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10147. That issue reports that a named MCP gateway aborts remote tools after 10 seconds and ignores the connection timeoutMs. This pull request raises the default deadline of a remote MCP `tools/call` to 30 seconds. It does not make the named gateway read the connection timeoutMs. Related: #11910 (open) keeps a connection callable after one timed-out tools/call. On current master a timeout and a JSON-RPC response error already keep the connection healthy, and this pull request keeps that policy. I searched pull requests and issues for "event stream tools/call", "SSE MCP tool call hang", "remote MCP timeout stream", "mcp text/event-stream" and "tool_timeout remote MCP". The only related open pull request is #11910. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/remote-http-fetch.ts`: the default response timeout is exported as `DEFAULT_REMOTE_HTTP_RESPONSE_TIMEOUT_MS` (30,000 ms, unchanged value). - `server/src/services/tool-gateway.ts`: - A remote MCP `tools/call` that uses the default deadline now gets `DEFAULT_REMOTE_HTTP_RESPONSE_TIMEOUT_MS` instead of the general tool default of 10 seconds. The Railway `run-command` budget and an explicit `timeoutMs` keep their values. - The call evidence records the response status, content type and request id before the body is read. A body that fails partway records the bytes received so far as its size. - A failed call records `failureKind` (`invocation_timeout`, `protocol_failure` or `transport_failure`), the deadline and whether it was aborted, the stream progress, and the error with its cause chain. Each string in the chain is redacted with `redactSensitiveText`, and a cyclic cause chain is cut with a "[Circular cause]" marker. - A deadline abort is a 504 `tool_timeout` and starts a fresh MCP session on the next call, as before. The connection health policy of master does not change. - A deliberate stop of a call (`elicitation_required`, `provider_interaction_required`, `oauth_insufficient_scope`, `oauth_refreshed_retry_required`) keeps its own reason when the deadline passes while it is recorded, as on master. An error that is already a gateway error also gets a failure kind: `tool_timeout` is `invocation_timeout`; a malformed, invalid or oversized response is `protocol_failure`; and `remote_http_*` (for example a DNS failure) and `mcp_remote_fetch_failed` are `transport_failure`. - A non-success response body is read as a stream, so a body that fails partway records the bytes that arrived. The reader stops at the size limit and cancels the body, as the `tools/call` reader does. #19785 makes the same reader change for the context path. - `server/src/services/mcp-http.ts`: `readMcpHttpResponse` takes an `onProgress` callback. It reports bytes, chunks and events received, whether the matching response arrived, and whether the stream ended. As on master, the read returns as soon as the response with the matching id arrives. - Tests: - `server/src/__tests__/mcp-http.test.ts`: a partial event followed by a peer error keeps the progress that was consumed, and releases the reader. - `server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway.test.ts`: six scenarios run against a remote server that streams one progress event first: slow success after 12 seconds, the default deadline, an explicit 1,500 ms deadline, a peer reset, a cyclic error cause, and a primitive error value. - `server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway.test.ts`: three regression tests: a tool question sent after the deadline passed keeps `elicitation_required`; a DNS failure records `transport_failure`; and a 503 body that fails partway records the bytes that arrived. All three fail on |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
ac0d0374f2 |
perf(issue-detail): measure task opens on real instances (#20276)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - People open a task from their issues list to see what an agent is doing and to reply > - On a busy staging instance, the composer and the latest messages take 1.1–2.0 s to appear after a click. For one task with a slow run log, they took 13.9 s > - Local fixtures do not reproduce this. They do not have real network round trips, real server contention, or real object-store latency > - This pull request adds the measurement we need: a browser harness that times a task open on a real instance, and a Server-Timing entry on every API response that separates server time from network time > - It also records the staging baseline and the improvement plan > - The benefit is that each later performance change can be measured on real data with the same tool, before and after deploy ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Opening a task from the issues list is slow on instances with real data. The composer and the latest chat messages can take seconds to appear. We could not measure this on staging in a repeatable way. We also could not tell server time from network and queueing time for most API requests. **Proposed solution** Add a reusable browser harness for task opens, and add a `paperclip_api` Server-Timing entry to every API response. **Alternatives considered** Local Playwright fixtures only. They do not reproduce real network round trips, server contention or object-store latency, so they did not show the delays that people see. Per-endpoint Server-Timing only. It does not cover the many other requests that run during a task open. **Roadmap alignment** This is measurement for existing task-loading behaviour. It does not add product features. The staging baseline and the measured causes are in `doc/plans/2026-11-09-task-loading-performance.md`. Follow-up pull requests change the loading behaviour itself, starting with #20277. ## What Changed - Added `server/src/middleware/api-server-timing.ts`. Every `/api` response now has a `paperclip_api;dur=<ms>` Server-Timing entry. The value is the server time from request arrival until headers are written, including admission waits. The entry is appended, so the existing `paperclip_issue` phases stay first. - Registered the middleware first in `server/src/app.ts`. - Added `tests/perf/issue-detail/staging-click-harness.js`. It clicks a task row and records, frame by frame, when the composer and the latest message become visible, layout shifts, movement of the latest message, and the requests that run before the page is ready. The summary labels each sample instead of using the task reference. It replaces query values and every path segment that contains a digit. A fetch that is still running when the sample ends is listed as pending. - Documented the harness in `tests/perf/issue-detail/README.md`. - Added the dated plan `doc/plans/2026-11-09-task-loading-performance.md` with the staging baseline, the causes, and the prioritized slices. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/api-server-timing.test.ts`. 3 tests pass. They cover the JSON responses, the time spent in earlier middleware, preserving route phases, and explicit `writeHead` calls. - `tests/perf/issue-detail/issue-detail.perf.spec.ts` reads the first `dur=` value. That value is still `paperclip_issue`. - The harness was used on staging to capture the baseline in the plan document. ## Risks - Low risk. The header has only a duration, with no request, user or company data. - The middleware wraps `res.writeHead` once for each request. This is the same pattern that `on-headers` uses. - Server-Timing is visible to same-origin scripts only. No `Timing-Allow-Origin` header is added. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used in Claude Code with tool use (shell, browser automation, file editing). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
fb88a89f04 |
fix(chat): tell chat agents how to link a case page while Cases is enabled (#20265)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent Chat answers questions about company records and links each record it cites > - Chat guidance gives link formats for tasks, approvals, runs and agent profiles > - Cases (an experiment) have their own page at `/<prefix>/cases/<identifier>`, but the guidance does not name it > - So an agent that answers a question about a case's fact history names the case but cannot link it > - This pull request adds a Cases directive to chat guidance, only while the Cases experiment is on > - The benefit is that a person can open the case, where its facts and audit history are, from the reply ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** In a chat eval with Cases enabled, a person asked who changed a case's diagnosis. The agent read the case audit and the task's document revisions and answered correctly. It wrote "case COM-C1" as plain text. It linked only the task. The guidance in the chat prompt has no link format for a case, and the agent does not guess routes. **Expected behavior** When a reply concerns a case (its facts, fact-change history or handoffs), the agent links the case page as a Markdown link, for example `[RUN-C1](/<prefix>/cases/RUN-C1)`, and also links the tasks it cites. When the Cases experiment is off, the prompt does not mention cases. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable the Cases experiment. 2. Create a case with a primary task, and change one of its facts. 3. In Agent Chat, ask "Who changed the diagnosis, and what did it say before?" 4. Before this change, the reply names the case identifier but has no link to the case page. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/agent-conversations.ts`: new `CASES_CHAT_DIRECTIVE`. It says what a case is, names the `/<prefix>/cases/<case identifier>` page, and asks for a Markdown link when a reply concerns a case. - `server/src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.ts`: new `casesEnabled` input. A conversation prompt includes the directive under "Cases:" only when it is true. - `server/src/services/heartbeat/task-context.ts`: sets `casesEnabled` from the `enableCases` experimental setting, the same way as `statusCardsEnabled`. - `server/src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.test.ts`: new test. The directive appears for a standing chat with Cases on. It does not appear with Cases off or for a non-chat task. The test also checks that the board route `cases/:caseIdentifier` exists in `ui/src/App.tsx`. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.test.ts` passes (18 tests). - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server` passes. - The `cases.case-history` chat eval uses this guidance. Its rerun is on branch `chat-eval/case-unclear-9`. ## Risks - Low risk. The change adds prompt text only when the Cases experiment is on. It does not change any API or permission. - The prompt for chats on instances with Cases enabled is slightly longer. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), 1M context, extended thinking, with tool use (shell, file edit, GitHub CLI). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |