mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
1de794cb80
## Thinking Path - #19908 made a refused private evidence transfer print a closed refusal code instead of one generic line. - Its first real use printed `refusal: dynamic`: the trusted modules build some refusals at runtime (secret-leak findings, publication-boundary limits), and those were deliberately not named because their text can carry paths or counts. - The fixed part of each template is safe and is exactly what an operator needs to know which check refused. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** After #19908, a refused `runs-adapters.inspect-failed-run` attempt (workflow run 42422571919) printed `Restricted manual evidence operation failed (refusal: dynamic)`, so the reason was still unknown. **Expected behavior** A refused transfer still keeps message text private, but names which check refused it with a closed code, so the attempt can be diagnosed. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Dispatch `runner-full-stack-e2e.yml` manually for a chat cell whose private evidence fails transfer validation. 2. Open the "Retain complete approved manual originals" step log: it shows the single fixed failure line with no reason. ## What Changed - `private-refusal-code.ts`: runtime-built refusals from the trusted modules map to fixed template codes (`template-secret-leak`, `template-publication-boundary-exceeded`, `template-invalid-file-metadata`, `template-history-expiration-unprovable`). Variable parts are never printed. - Tests: each template is named without its variable text, and a source scan asserts every runtime-built `new Error` in the trusted modules maps to a named code (not `dynamic`). ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts tests/runner-e2e/private-refusal-code.test.ts tests/runner-e2e/manual-private-transfer.test.ts`: 20 passed. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p tests/runner-e2e`: clean. ## Risks - Template codes reveal which kind of check refused (for example that a secret-shaped value was found), not where or what. That is the intended operator signal; the finding itself stays private. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), via Claude Code, with tool use (shell, 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 - [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>