mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 07:10:34 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
0e111c5075
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and the work assigned to them. > - A task can retain saved input after a failure during execution preparation. > - Retry must prove that the old attempt stopped and its files are saved before it admits a new turn. > - The host can write a skill announcement before it dispatches a provider. > - The historical preparation verifier requires an empty log and rejects this safe host output. > - This pull request verifies that exact small log against the saved skill selection and immutable log facts. > - Eligible saved input can continue once. Uncertain execution and current policy gates stay held. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #19004, #19464, #19552. These repairs establish the existing preparation proof. They do not accept the host skill announcement described here. A search for the exact announcement found no duplicate repair. This is a bug fix within the existing recovery contract and does not duplicate a roadmap feature. **What happened?** A legacy preparation failed before provider dispatch with a host bootstrap certificate. Its remote lease stopped and its files were recovered. A newer preparation failed while that save was in progress. An accepted Retry then remained in execution recovery because its ancestor had one host skill log record. **Expected behavior** Admit one fresh turn for the existing saved user request after all execution, workspace and policy proofs pass. Preserve old outcomes and source records. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create the real PostgreSQL fixture in `saved-bootstrap-continuation.test.ts`. It includes a recovered remote workspace, exact stop receipt, bootstrap ancestor, later failed preparation and saved user status queue. 2. Call `requestTaskRetry`, then call the real resume path concurrently. 3. On the baseline guard, the empty-log control dispatches. Adding only the host skill announcement leaves zero queued successors and the same execution-recovery wait. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master `65aee998a3`. The final branch rebases cleanly onto `c650f36007`. **Deployment mode** Source checkout with real embedded PostgreSQL and controlled log storage. The reported runtime is a server with remote sandbox workspaces. ## What Changed - Add a narrow verifier for one host skill-announcement record. It binds the complete bytes to the run log reference, digest, size, sequence, timestamp, output excerpt and recorded skill selection. Each announced skill must have a saved version; unrelated configured skills may also be selected. - Read at most 2,049 bytes with a two-second cancellation deadline. Missing, slow, changed, additional or provider output fails closed. - Use this proof only for historical bootstrap ancestors that already pass the no-provider, settlement, stop and saved-file checks. - Add real admission regressions for one successor, concurrent resume, duplicate Retry and delivery of the original saved comment. Add current-gate and storage-boundary negative cases. - Document the continuation contract. ## Verification - **RED:** On the unchanged baseline guard, the exact final fixture passes the empty-log control and fails the host-announcement case: zero successors instead of one. The saved comment and Retry remain deferred. - **GREEN:** 486/486 tests pass across `task-retry.test.ts`, `explicit-native-continuation.test.ts`, `saved-bootstrap-continuation.test.ts` and `verified-preparation-log.test.ts`. - The new cases cover provider-started evidence, provider events, a native coordinator, missing stop proof, missing skill selection, changed hash, unknown output, pending approval and operator Stop. - Read-boundary cases cover foreign references, changed bytes, truncation, extra records, malformed selection and cancellation. An unrelated recovery completes while another read is stalled. - After the rebase, the original 27 new cases passed again at head `be640292fe136232e3db0dc6938233f53b6ccb43`. The review fix adds three cases, and the full 486-test pass includes all 30 new cases. - The exact previously observed historical input also passes the production log verifier: one read, 240 bytes matching the stored size and SHA, the same timestamp and output sequence, and a recorded version for the announced skill. This uses captured bytes for transport and does not claim live hosted admission. - Full local server layered typecheck passes after building this checkout's Runner declarations and normal excluded-plugin SDK links. The typing correction also passes all 30 new cases and the actual captured historical log proof. The prior CI build/typecheck failure was TS7006 in the JSON parser; it is retained as failed evidence and corrected in this revision. - Module boundary and whitespace checks pass. Local verification selection requires broad CI because the execution contract changed; focused local suites are recorded above. [Required final-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42281590449) typecheck, build and tests pass at `c557cdc4dc57000cb478f9be0717675dcac7364e` (56 successful checks, no required check pending or failed). Greptile rates this final revision 5/5; the addressed thread is resolved. The advisory hosted Paperclip Review is paused with its request saved and has not supplied a final-head assessment. Its pending status is disclosed separately from required CI and Greptile. - Controlled fixtures exercise the admission and dispatch receipts. Hosted continuation still requires rollout and reassessment of the existing request. ## Risks This adds one bounded storage read to an active historical admission check. Failed or uncertain reads keep the existing hold. The host bootstrap certificate remains the primary no-provider proof. Log text alone cannot authorize continuation. No schema, retry budget, provider setting, account selection or scheduler changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 family via Codex, with coding and tool use. The exact model ID and context window are unavailable in this session's metadata. ## 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>