DottaandPaperclip
98d17da1e2
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native runs persist their results and workspace before they release execution. > - A task monitor must wait for that settlement before it starts the next run. > - The scheduler checked provider status but did not check unfinished finalization. > - A timer could dispatch too early, then its old finalizer could no longer find the consumed schedule. > - This pull request delays dispatch and reconciles prior delivery from server records. > - The task can continue without repeating the provider turn or removing a newer run's ownership. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native run saved a yielded monitor result while workspace finalization needed recovery. Its timer dispatched after the provider stopped. The follow-up failed because the earlier run still held workspace recovery. The old finalizer then retried `monitor_wait_authority_lost` indefinitely. **Expected behavior** Timer dispatch waits for native finalization. If an older timer already dispatched, the finalizer uses its saved scheduling receipt and admitted successor to settle the old result. It preserves current task state and ownership. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Schedule a task monitor from a native run and save a yielded result. 2. Leave native finalization retryable after the provider reaches a terminal state. 3. Let the monitor become due. Before this change, the scheduler consumes it. 4. Restore workspace persistence and retry the old finalizer. Before this change, the missing schedule leaves it retryable. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against master `34be1b831bcaba070264ae8d214ceffe6a8f9eab`. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server built from source, with PostgreSQL and the native runner. Related recent recovery work: #16962 and #16963. No duplicate repair found for this failure. ## What Changed - Scheduled and manual monitor dispatch wait for unfinished native finalization. If the monitor expires during workspace recovery, the accepted result can settle into the persisted schedule, and the scheduler then applies its existing expiry policy. New monitor-wait results still require an unexpired, unexhausted schedule. - A narrow reader joins the run's server-issued monitor receipt to its durable wake and admitted successor. - The finalizer and locked status commit verify that evidence and preserve current task ownership. They do not create another wake. - Monitor delivery participates in assessment identity, so recovery can replace a prior error decision without violating the decision ledger's uniqueness constraints. - PostgreSQL regressions cover saved-result replay, active successors, wrong task or agent, missing receipts, unadmitted wakes, ownership races, and failed workspace persistence. - The execution contract and verification maps describe the recovery boundary. ## Verification - Red: the saved monitor regression remained `retryable_failure` instead of `committed` on unpatched code. - Red: the scheduler admitted a wake while terminal-run finalization remained retryable. - Red/green: two PostgreSQL cases reproduce timeout during workspace recovery for scheduled and manual checks. Before the review repair, both remain `retryable_failure` with `monitor_wait_authority_lost`. Afterward, both commit, apply board escalation once, preserve the saved result, and enqueue zero provider wakes. New completion still rejects the expired schedule. - Typecheck: `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - Build: `pnpm build` passed. - Maps: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - Review: Greptile 5/5 and Ponytail Paperclip Review 5/5 on the current head, with no unresolved findings. Both reviews are static; execution evidence is recorded separately above and below. - Linux staging: the original repair passed 170 tests across monitor integration, scheduling, status arbitration, and workspace finalization. The expanded suite passes all 172 tests, including both new timeout regressions. - Live acceptance: deployed the original repair to the authorized Linux ARM64 self-hosted instance. The stranded saved result finalized automatically; the original task then completed through normal admission, with its final answer persisted after browser reload. The other original task was already complete and its external delivery was verified without repeating it. - The initial Mac regression run passed 68 tests, but three suites failed during embedded PostgreSQL startup. A subsequent focused run confirmed the host had exhausted its PostgreSQL semaphore allowance. Linux verification uses isolated databases; the local failure logs remain preserved. - The local full test suite is not claimed as passed. It is blocked by the same PostgreSQL startup limitation; full-suite CI passed on head `8bc29d1b7783446f397b858e558083570a96bb66` ([run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39447913466)). ## Risks - A delivery match must not grant new execution authority. The lookup requires the original run's server receipt and a matching company, agent, task, wake, and admitted successor. The locked commit rejects old-run checkout ownership and permits no status effects. - Workspace persistence must succeed before settlement. Its existing failure path remains effective. - The scheduler waits while a native finalizer is unfinished. Workspace recovery must settle before dispatch; elapsed monitor limits transfer to the existing scheduler recovery policy instead of stranding the result. Neither settlement path renews a deadline or changes budget, approval, pause, or provider authority. - No schema, migration, credential, or provider configuration change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with tool use and code execution. The exact backend model ID and context-window size are not exposed in 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 - [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>
Paperclip feature map
Start here when reproducing a user-facing bug, verifying a change, or deciding which surfaces a fix must cover. Each recipe describes what a person can do, where they can do it, the expected result, and the evidence needed to verify it. Product behavior is still governed by the implementation spec.
The sibling agent access map records APIs, agent entry points and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. Follow the shared map contract when maintaining either map.
Browse features
Open the published Storybook guide for the assembled feature and capability index. The Markdown recipes in this directory are the authored source. Each has a same-named agent-access companion.
Run node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs to generate local navigation in
maps/generated/feature-map.md, maps/generated/agent-access-map.md, and the
Storybook guide. A new recipe is discovered automatically; do not register it in
this README or maintain counts here.
Before driving a journey
- Use this checkout's isolated test drive for manual product checks. It creates a temporary instance and prints its URL and data directory. Do not guess that a server on port 3100 belongs to you.
- Record the commit, URL, company, login role, relevant experimental settings, adapter, runtime mode, and live versus simulated dependencies. Use disposable tasks and provider resources. A fresh test drive creates a company and CEO, but no task or first run.
- Use the current navigation and company prefix. Paths in recipes omit that prefix. Record whether the streamlined or production shell is selected; Agent Chat, chat connectors, and the combined Inbox/Tasks view have separate gates. A hidden surface is an unmet prerequisite, not a successful test.
- Run the smallest relevant test first. Vitest commands below run from the repository root after installing dependencies. Playwright recipes use their named configuration and its isolated environment, not an unrelated running instance. Reserve expensive runner/provider tests for the behavior at issue.
- Exercise the actual user action, inspect its result, reload, and verify the persisted state or continuation. Use read-only API checks to corroborate UI evidence; creating state through the API does not prove the creation UI.
For agent-driven acceptance work, start with the Paperclip verification skill for an isolated launch, ownership/readiness checks, browser driving, evidence, and cleanup. It uses this directory as its feature map. The existing dev-workspace run/verify skill and evaluation skill describe runtime ownership and evidence handling. Reuse them; this map introduces no environment launcher, credentials, scheduled job, or second test framework.
Evidence contract
Report each entry point as passed, failed, blocked (with its missing prerequisite), or not run. Include the feature filename and entry-point ID, commit/environment, user action, expected and observed result, command/exit code, and evidence links. Screenshots or traces should show both the action and the discriminating result. Include task/run/request IDs when relevant, without secrets.
A fix is verified across its affected surfaces only when each has evidence or an explicit reason it does not apply. Shared code alone does not prove parity. Keep product regressions visible; do not change the recipe to bless a failure. For Paperclip-assigned work, attach evidence through the artifact workflow.
Inventory and remaining depth
The generated maps/generated/coverage.json lists the current non-test TSX page
modules and the recipes that directly reference each one. An unreferenced module
is a documentation candidate, not proof that its feature is absent or untested.
Remaining workflow limits live in each recipe. Inventory and example associations
describe documentation scope, not runtime health.
Maintaining the reference
The map documents user journeys. It does not execute them automatically; generated inventories record documentation scope rather than live test health.
When maintaining a recipe, compare its entry points and expected results with
the current source. Check that linked tests still exercise the stated behavior
and that local references still exist. Keep the same-named agent access companion
and stable sub-feature IDs aligned when behavior or access changes. Source-only
access inventory remains distinct from live verification. Run
node scripts/check-maps.mjs after map edits for structural/reference checks;
follow the shared contract for the source and behavioral checks it cannot perform.
Each recipe starts with a small frontmatter navigation record, then an H1:
---
navigation: {"section":"Tasks and conversations","sectionOrder":20,"order":10}
---
The H1 supplies the feature title, and the first paragraph supplies its summary. Orders are local to the section; leave gaps for additions. Equal orders use the stable filename as a tie-breaker. Keep a section's name/order consistent across its recipes. A new feature or capability needs only its recipe and companion.
Optional ### Storybook verification guidance lives inside the recipe's Gotchas
section. Each level-four heading contains a backtick-quoted capability key and
has Scope (ui, cli, or browser),
Storybook, Production, and Sources fields. These are verification instructions
and intentional scope limits, not run results or a required story for every API.
The generated gap report combines this guidance with current story associations.
After frontmatter, each recipe starts with an H1 and a user-visible description, then exactly:
- Sub-features — stable backticked IDs and observable behavior/states.
- How to get to it (user POV) — one H3 backticked entry-point ID per surface.
- Driving it with — starts with
Preconditions:; repeat each entry-point H3, withAutomated:andManual:paragraphs. Name test scope and gaps honestly. - Gotchas — misleading look-alikes, feature gates, and invalid evidence.
New or updated entries follow
Poteto's feature-map examples.
Existing entries with a Driving it heading can adopt the named harness when
their recipes are updated. The original format was inspired by
Omnigent's feature map.
Paperclip's recipes and checks follow its own task model and test infrastructure.