Files
PaperClipAI/tests
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5 42a5d71cb7 test(chaos): separate workspace provisioning from agent boot; grade outage-created runs as restart (#20119)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The restart chaos harness grades speed against the native speed
budgets, and a breach fails the wave
> - In the real-repository R1 wave, the claude cold boot p95 was 31 s
against 20.5 s, and cold first activity p95 was 37 s against 30 s
> - The performance session traced both. The boot breach was the
repository's own provisioning script on the first worktree creation
(21–24 s), not Paperclip startup. The first-activity breach was a run
created during an outage, behind the next fault
> - This pull request reports provisioning on its own row, keeps it out
of agent boot, and grades runs created during an outage as restart
> - The benefit is that a speed breach points at Paperclip startup, not
at project setup scripts or injected downtime

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #20106, #20111

**What happened?**
Wave `w-20261108T215822-s9805` (R1 in a Paperclip clone) reported a
claude cold boot p95 of 31.0 s. The slow run spent 22.8 s in
`heartbeat.prepare.workspace_provision`, the repository's
`scripts/provision-worktree.sh`. Reuse takes 0.3 s. Its cold
first-activity p95 came from run 630088a4, created 4 s after a fault
killed its predecessor. That run queued until the next fault cleared,
and #20106 still graded it cold because no fault started inside its own
window.

**Expected behavior**
Project provisioning is reported, not charged to agent boot. A run
created while a fault's outage is in progress is graded as restart.

## What Changed

- `faultBeforeFirstActivity` takes outage windows and returns true when
any window, from fault start to ready, overlaps the run's span from
creation to its first activity. It used to take fault start instants
only.
- A run with `retryOfRunId` (the successor of an interrupted run) is
graded as restart.
- `collectWaveSpeed` reads each run's workspace operations. Provisioning
counts only when a `workspace_provision` operation has
`metadata.created: true`, meaning first-time creation of the workspace;
reuse (about 0.5 s) is left in boot.
- `bootWithoutProvisionMs` subtracts that first-time
`heartbeat.prepare.workspace_provision` span from agent boot for the
wave grade. Per-run boot breaches use it too.
- New report-only row `workspace_provision` per adapter and start, shown
only when the run created its workspace. It has no budget.
- `runMetrics` and the TTFT baseline tool are unchanged. `BaselineRun`
gains an optional `workspaceCreated`.

## Verification

- `npx vitest run` in `tests/restart-chaos`: 195 passed. New cases cover
a run created during an outage, a retry successor, provisioning counted
only for `created: true` through `collectWaveSpeed`, the provisioning
row and boot without provisioning.
- `node scripts/typecheck-test-projects.mjs tests/restart-chaos`: clean.

## Risks

- A slow provisioning step no longer fails the boot budget. It stays
visible on its own row, with no budget, because it runs the project's
own script.
- A run created during any outage, and any retry successor (including a
user Retry), is graded as restart even when it started quickly. Restart
recovery still measures it.
- One extra API read per run (workspace operations) during speed
collection. A failed read counts as not created, so boot is never
under-charged.

## Model Used

- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, with tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.

## 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>
2026-11-08 16:54:58 -06:00
..