mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 16:02:36 +01:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
1aa0c36397
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their work. > - First-task onboarding turns a user's goal into an approved proposal. > - The interview offers a plan and a team to carry out that plan. > - The instructions leave execution after acceptance unclear. > - An agent can add a plan-only approval boundary and finish without doing the requested work. > - This change makes the approval scope explicit and tests both execution and plan-only outcomes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An onboarding agent can treat an interview about building a product as a request for a plan only. It can then retain the approved plan and close onboarding without creating execution tasks. The interview evaluation previously accepted that result. **Expected behavior** Acceptance of an execution proposal starts its selected work. An explicit plan-only request stops after planning. User-requested separate approvals and existing permission and budget controls still apply. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Choose the onboarding interview and describe a deliverable. 2. Accept the saved plan proposal. 3. Check that the agent starts the approved work instead of closing with only a plan. ## What Changed - Clarify execution intent, approval wording, continuation, and completion in the first-task prompt. - Require assigned child work and saved output in the interview acceptance evaluation. Use checkbox acceptance in the regular interview journey and retain conversational acceptance in the approval-reply suite. - Add an explicit plan-only acceptance journey and nine grader regression checks. - Update evaluation counts, grading versions, and onboarding verification guidance. ## Verification - Passed: all applicable CI checks on `198a6b47cac7`, including typechecks, the general and serialized server tests, Runner checks, build, and browser E2E shards. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42324855376). - Passed locally: the full Runner support suite, 6,860 tests across 323 files (three skipped), plus 13 onboarding asset tests. - Passed locally: the full workspace build, workspace package typechecks (server rechecked after restoring excluded-plugin SDK links), and the Runner evaluation TypeScript check. - Passed: map validation and whitespace checks. - Initial broad local checks failed during checkout preparation because PostgreSQL library symlinks and runtime/SDK assets were missing. Restoring the dependency setup made the affected controls pass. The full root test suite passed in CI; it was not rerun locally after that repair. - Live model journeys have not been run. Grader tests do not prove model compliance. ## Risks - Prompt behavior needs live qualification across providers. This change adds no server-side enforcement or permission bypass. - The new plan-only case adds four local evaluation cells. A full campaign now has 56 first-task cells. - Existing proposals that reserve later approval keep that restriction. This change does not rewrite tenant data or start existing onboarding tasks. - No schema migration or deployment is included. ## Model Used - OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, xhigh reasoning effort, with repository tools and local test execution. Context window size is 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 (focused and full Runner support locally; full root coverage passed in CI) - [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>