mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
2e4774ac90
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Local agent wakes include a default execution contract > - That contract tells agents how issue-thread continuation policies behave > - The current text says `wake_assignee` resumes a confirmation only after acceptance > - The server actually wakes for every non-expired resolution and reserves acceptance-only behavior for `wake_assignee_on_accept` > - This pull request makes the default prompt match the server contract and strengthens the recovery follow-up regression case > - The benefit is that agents choose the correct continuation policy and recovery tests cover normalized agent name keys ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: Refs #5473, Refs #5060, and Refs #10562. **What happened?** The default local-agent prompt described `wake_assignee` as acceptance-only for `request_confirmation`. This conflicts with the server. The server wakes on every non-expired resolution. A recovery follow-up test also used an already-normalized execution agent name key, so it did not exercise the normalization seam. **Expected behavior** The prompt must state that `wake_assignee` resumes after acceptance or rejection. It must direct acceptance-only flows to `wake_assignee_on_accept`. The recovery regression must use a display-style agent name key and prove that the follow-up path still works after normalization. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Read the default local-agent prompt in `packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts`. 2. Compare its confirmation continuation text with `queueResolvedInteractionContinuationWakeup` in `server/src/routes/issues.ts`. 3. Observe that the prompt gives acceptance-only semantics to `wake_assignee`. 4. Inspect the recovery hand-back test and observe that its execution name key is already normalized. **Paperclip version or commit** `7301fae942` **Deployment mode** Local dev. The prompt and test behavior are not deployment-specific. ## What Changed - Corrected the default agent prompt for `wake_assignee` and `wake_assignee_on_accept`. - Added focused prompt assertions for both the required and obsolete text. - Changed the recovery follow-up fixture to use a display-style agent name key. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts -t 'keeps the default local-agent prompt action-oriented'` passed: 1 test. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts -t 'defers recovery hand-back wakes until the resolving run exits'` passed: 1 test. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. ## Risks - Low risk. The production change updates prompt text only. - Agents that followed the old text may now choose `wake_assignee_on_accept` for acceptance-only flows. - The server test change only broadens an existing regression fixture. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed to the agent. The model used reasoning, repository tools, tests, Git, and GitHub CLI access. ## 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 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>