mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
Devin Foley
27f8c8dbcf
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Execution policies let one agent implement and another review, cycling through changes-requested → addressed rounds > - Nothing bounds that cycle: no round counter, no escalation, no termination signal — two agents can ping-pong indefinitely, especially when the review's success criteria drift to something the implementer cannot satisfy > - On a real multi-agent instance this produced 6+ unattended rounds (~8 runs) that continued even after the human had merged the PR under review > - This pull request counts consecutive agent-initiated changes-requested rounds and, at a configurable cap, hands the still-pending review to the responsible human instead of bouncing back to the implementer > - The benefit is that unattended review loops terminate in a human decision instead of burning runs forever ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #10643 ## What Changed - `IssueExecutionState.changesRequestedCount` (schema + type, default 0): consecutive agent-initiated changes-requested rounds on the current stage. Carries through executor resubmissions, resets to 0 on approval, and resets when a **human** makes the changes-requested decision — the cap targets unattended agent↔agent ping-pong, never human review. - `IssueExecutionPolicy.maxReviewRounds` (optional, 1–50, default null → server default `DEFAULT_MAX_REVIEW_ROUNDS = 3`). - At the cap, the transition records the reviewer's changes-requested decision as usual but keeps the stage **pending** with the responsible human (`responsibleUserId`, falling back to `createdByUserId`) as the participant: the issue is assigned to that human and the pending review surfaces through the existing attention/review UI. The human then approves, requests changes (resetting the counter and handing back to the implementer), or re-scopes. - The escalated hold is sticky: transitions from anyone other than the escalated human no longer re-select a configured agent participant for the stage (which would have silently undone the escalation on the next unrelated PATCH). The escalated human's own decisions flow through the normal participant decision branch. - Issues with no responsible human keep today's hand-back behavior; the counter still accumulates so operators can see the churn. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts` — 8 new cases: round counting on hand-back, count carried through resubmission, escalation at the default cap, sticky hold across unrelated transitions, human changes-requested resets the counter, human approval completes the stage, no-responsible-human fallback, and a `maxReviewRounds: 1` policy override. - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts` and the full `@paperclipai/shared` suite (387 tests) — schema additions are backward compatible (both fields optional with defaults; persisted states without the counter parse as 0). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec tsc --noEmit` and `cd server && pnpm run typecheck`. ## Risks - Behavior change: an agent-only review loop that previously ran forever now escalates to a human after 3 agent rounds by default. Instances that want longer loops can set `maxReviewRounds` per policy. Flows where a human participates are unaffected (human decisions reset the counter). - Escalation requires a `responsibleUserId`/`createdByUserId` on the issue; without one, behavior is unchanged. - Persisted execution states from before this change parse with `changesRequestedCount: 0` — no migration needed. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved. ## 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