mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-03 17:51:58 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
09162fe893
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people assign work to AI agents. > - Native task creation can start the assigned agent as soon as the task is ready. > - The default assignee is the agent that creates the task. > - An agent can omit the requested teammate, create work for itself, and reassign it too late. > - The server already supports setting the requested agent and project during creation. > - This pull request makes those fields and the early-start risk clear in both tool catalogs and the delegated-task example. > - The benefit is clearer guidance for the existing delegation contract. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #13281. **What happened?** An observed delegation attempt called `create_task` with only a title and retry key. The task used the documented current-agent default and started work before a later reassignment. The server honored its contract. The original failed QA result remains failed. **Expected behavior** When a user names an existing teammate and project, the agent should put their exact IDs in `assigneeActorId` and `projectId` during task creation. The requested worker can then start with the correct task ownership and project. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Ask an agent to create work for a named existing teammate in a named project. 2. Create a ready task with only its title and retry key. 3. Observe that the creating agent is assigned and can start before a later reassignment. This is a guidance mitigation for agent tool misuse. It does not change the default or enforce model compliance. A fresh deployed qualification is still required. ## What Changed - Explain initial teammate and project selection in the canonical `create_task` description and its two field descriptions. - Add a representative delegated-task call with an explicit agent, project, and saved plan. - Synchronize the same three descriptions in the sibling semantic-action catalog. Keep its schema constraints intact. - Keep the global execution prompt byte-for-byte equal to the base. Revision `paperclip-execution.v8` already directs the agent to create delegated work with the teammate ID. - Refresh the generated catalogs, seeded catalog identity, and protocol manifest. - Make the collaboration contract test use the declared scenario example, as the general contract test already does. Retain separate live-example validation and strict scenario input checks. ## Verification - All 79 existing native controls passed across `chat-project-tools`, `paperclip-runner-tool-authority`, `task-creation-backlog`, and `tool-receipt-recovery`. These cover alternate-agent readback, current-agent defaults, backlog holds, company boundaries, and dispatch recovery after commit. - All 108 protocol-action, semantic-catalog, catalog-doc, runtime-context, and collaboration checks passed. All 11 contract fingerprint checks passed. - The original CI collaboration-test failure reproduced locally before correction: the test sent live-only fields to the older scenario schema. After selecting the declared scenario example, all 13 collaboration cases passed. Malformed titles, undeclared project fields, and arbitrary unknown fields still reject. No schema or live example was changed for this correction. - Generator checks passed for semantic contracts, the semantic-action catalog, operation groups, and protocol coverage. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `git diff --check` passed. - A structural comparison confirms that types, required fields, lengths, modes, permissions, outputs, and defaults are unchanged on both catalog surfaces. - No new text-matching tests were added. These local checks passed again after the global prompt was restored. Fresh exact-head Greptile and Paperclip reviews are both 5/5 with no actionable findings. [Current-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41565349812) completed successfully on `2e5f93e122191e17b316a7780a74ff404fc468f3` (attempt 2), with all 49 workflow jobs successful. - Current-head CI first failed only the unchanged native-process retention case at its original five-second limit. The shard passed 2,130 other tests and skipped eight. One unchanged local Node 24 control passed. The original test and retention dependency blobs match the base. The exact timeout cause remains unknown. No source, assertion, or time limit changed. One authorized recheck of only that runner shard and its normal final gate passed. The recheck passed 2,131 tests and skipped eight. The other 47 successful job results were carried forward with their original start and finish times. - The prior head `42207172dd4bc376dab880dbccb2c698acccf6c4` passed all 49 CI jobs and fresh 5/5 reviews. Its first CI attempt lost one server runner to a reported shutdown. One authorized retry of only that lost shard and its normal gate passed with unchanged assertions and time limits. The original failure and recovery remain recorded. - A normal merge of that prior head was rejected by the base policy because the global prompt required a code-owner review. This revision drops that optional global change. No policy override or bypass was used. - The new catalogs have semantic catalog digest `sha256:5af904b7fc088509b98dde41611c042ff3c22c881e252190817978de0d1b733a`. The authorized `create_task` operation digest is `sha256:f5dad10c7969680d91514603966705ac09ceaa3f2cff21fd6c199e2de0d7a63d`. - A new run can report admitted prompt revision v8 and its digest. The ordinary run-profile tool fingerprint does not hash these descriptions. Source/Core and matching provider-pack identity prove deployed code, not model delivery or compliance. A fresh campaign with new agents is still required. - No model run or deployed acceptance was performed for this source change. The original failed qualification remains failed. This tool-guidance change is a mitigation hypothesis. ## Risks The longer tool descriptions change the catalog identity. A model can still omit a requested field. The global prompt remains v8. Existing assignment, authorization, wake, replay, and session behavior stays intact. A new campaign is required because a stored provider session can retain old tool declarations. A native-process retention test has a recurring five-second timeout on unchanged code. One unchanged local Node 24 control passed. This does not prove CI reliability or explain the timeout. No timeout or assertion was changed. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex with reasoning and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model identifier or 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>