mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-08 19:56:31 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
8cfedd7df8
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their task execution. > - Agents need a durable way to return to work after a delayed check. > - The issue monitor scheduler already provides a one-shot wake for an assignee. > - Native runners reject generic execution-policy writes and had no bound monitor tool. > - Scheduling alone is insufficient because native completion also needs to accept a timed wait. > - This pull request adds an authorized monitor tool and connects it to completion and the existing scheduler. > - An agent can now schedule its next check, end the run, and resume on the same task. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native runner could not set its own task monitor. `call_api` correctly rejected execution-policy writes, while `schedule_wake` had no production binding. `paperclip_finish` also rejected monitor waits. **Expected behavior** A standard native run can set a one-shot monitor on its current task or another accessible task assigned to the same agent. After a confirmed schedule on the current task, it can yield. The scheduler later delivers `issue_monitor_due`. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a standard native task. 2. Ask the agent to check the task again later and end its current run. 3. Inspect available tools and try the generic issue execution-policy update. 4. Observe the missing native tool and the lifecycle-write denial. Related PRs: #14680 concerns monitor notes in the shared wake prompt. #11919 changes attempt-limit scope. This PR adds native scheduling and completion authority and retains the existing cumulative attempt bounds. It does not depend on either PR. ## What Changed - Add provider-neutral `set_task_monitor` with a default current-task target, future timestamp, required notes, existing bounds, and explicit clearing. - Check company, task visibility, ownership, runtime permissions, work mode, and active-run authority. Preserve review-only restrictions. Reject the reserved server-owned quota-recovery name before saving or accepting a native wait. - Commit the monitor, audit event, and retry receipt together. Retry receipts survive a successor run without re-arming cleared or consumed timers. - Permit `paperclip_finish` to yield to a persisted monitor. Recheck ownership and the schedule when committing final disposition. Release execution without an immediate continuation. - Preserve due monitors during native execution. Fence wake admission and consumption against replacement, clearing, reassignment, and completion. Preserve unrelated review policy. - Expose scheduled and consumed monitor instructions in task context. Update provider schemas, Rust validation, generated contracts, and execution documentation. - Add an opt-in live Codex smoke script with isolated data and explicit run/session/runner/process evidence. ## Verification - Repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed after rebase. Server typecheck passed again after review fixes. All CI test shards pass on `3def77b1b`, including runner TypeScript/Rust, server, serialized server, workspace, and browser tests. All CI gates are green, including the canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 on the same commit with zero unresolved threads. - The local monolithic `pnpm test:run`, started before the rebase, was interrupted after current-head CI test coverage passed. It is not counted as a standalone full-suite pass; the focused local regression suites passed. - Targeted server tests cover scheduling, replacement, clearing, policy preservation, cumulative bounds, cross-run retries, permissions, provider-neutral discovery, review restrictions, completion authority, and scheduler/finalizer races. - Runner contract/catalog/semantic tests and Rust terminal-tool tests cover the new operation and monitor completion. - Live Codex test passed twice (latest live run on `e0bcd63e6`) in a temporary database and workspace, with a 300,000 ms warm window. First run `67bd7709-c089-4d4a-9d2b-0d6b618a34b0` yielded at `2026-10-07T13:15:03.274Z`. Second run `97c323f9-595a-4cc5-a007-db5a2fbb937c` started at `13:15:30.952Z`, received `issue_monitor_due`, and completed the same task. Exactly one monitor wake was recorded. - Both live runs used native session `7b1dd753-1c9b-4e7a-b22f-a125dbc3748c`, runner `e90d9a1b-3502-4ee3-b15e-edc024c555d4`, provider session `01a11680-6d01-70c0-9a55-db7246ed66c3`, and PID `64218` with the same process start time. This proves warm reuse for that local Codex test, not only successful scheduling. - Reproduce the paid live test with `node --import ./server/node_modules/tsx/dist/loader.mjs server/scripts/smoke-native-task-monitor.ts --run`, with the installed Codex binary on `PATH` and a valid local login. ## Risks - The scheduler now defers monitor dispatch while the task has an active native run. A stuck run still depends on the existing recovery lifecycle. - Idempotency uses the existing run ledger; no table or migration is added. - Other providers share the tested tool and completion contracts. Only Codex received a live model test. - Existing `call_api` lifecycle restrictions remain enforced. Monitor waits do not bypass task blockers, reviews, or approvals. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with tool use, code execution, and TypeScript/Rust editing. The session does not expose the exact deployed model ID or context-window size. ## 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>