mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 07:12:00 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
15b0746340
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - When an agent needs a person to connect a service, it creates a
connection request card. The card is addressed to one person, and only
that person can complete or decline it. The server enforces this
> - Agents learn how connection requests work from the shared connection
guidance (`CONNECTION_INTENT_AGENT_GUIDANCE`). The `get_task_context`
tool returns it as `connectionGuidance`
> - That guidance did not say who can resolve a card. In chat-eval
cohort 4 (`connection-setup.wrong-person-resolves`), another member said
"I will finish Alex's connection request for them". The CEO agent read
only the task context and replied that "completing it there is the right
move"
> - The product still refused the other member, but the agent encouraged
an action that cannot succeed
> - This pull request adds one line to the shared guidance: a request
card is addressed to one person, only that person can complete or
decline it, and the agent says whose action it waits on
> - The benefit is that agents give the correct next step instead of
sending people to a control they cannot use
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A company member told the CEO agent "I will finish Alex's connection
request for them." The request card was addressed to Alex. The agent
replied "Alex's Notion connection request is on COM-1, so completing it
there is the right move. I'll leave the connection approval to you." The
server correctly refused the other member's setup, completion and
decline requests (403).
**Expected behavior**
The agent tells the person that the request waits on Alex, and that only
Alex can complete or decline it.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Have an agent create a Notion connection request card addressed to
Alex on a task.
2. As another company member, tell the agent in chat that you will
finish Alex's connection request.
3. Read the agent's reply.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master at f1aef0cb58.
## What Changed
- `packages/shared/src/connection-intent-guidance.ts`: one new guidance
line. A connection or access request card is addressed to one person;
only that person can complete or decline it; another member and the
agent cannot finish it for them; when someone else offers to, the agent
says whose action it waits on and points to the request.
- `packages/shared/src/connection-intent-guidance.test.ts`: a test that
the guidance states the addressee rule.
## Verification
- `cd packages/shared && npx vitest run
src/connection-intent-guidance.test.ts`: 4 tests pass. Red/green: the
new test fails without the guidance line.
- `npx vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts
tests/runner-e2e/connection-guidance.test.ts`: 17 tests pass.
`server/src/adapters/http/execute.test.ts`: 3 tests pass.
- `packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` has one local
failure ("does not crash when the child closes stdin before a delayed
write", 5 s timeout). It fails the same way on `origin/master` on this
machine, so it is not caused by this change. CI runs it.
- A paid chat-eval run of `connection-setup.wrong-person-resolves` with
this change is linked in a comment below.
## Risks
- Low risk. The guidance text grows by one line in every prompt that
includes connection guidance. The rule restates what the server already
enforces.
- Model behavior is not guaranteed by guidance. The server boundary
stays the enforcement.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, 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>