mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
946c098bf3
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native OpenCode agents run through runnerd and a small OpenCode proxy. The proxy checks each `paperclip_finish` claim against the run's completion contract. > - Each follow-up run has its own contract revision. #19874 lets runnerd keep the OpenCode process across a contract change, and sends the new contract on `turn/start`. > - When runnerd starts again for a follow-up, it restores the saved session first. The restored proxy launches with the saved run's contract, but its environment already names the new run. > - The proxy applied the `turn/start` contract only when the run id changed. Here the run id did not change, so the proxy kept the saved contract and refused every correct finish claim. > - This pull request makes the proxy rebind whenever the turn's contract differs from the one its session holds. The stale-revision error also names the expected revision. > - The benefit: a queued-comment follow-up finishes on its first try, and an agent that sends a stale revision can repair it. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19874 (warm runs carry their own completion contract). **What happened** A user sent a follow-up comment while an OpenCode agent was working. After the first run finished, Paperclip started a continuation run for the queued comment. The agent updated the plan and called `paperclip_finish` with the current revision `2`. The tool refused it twice with "Semantic result completion contract revision does not match". The error did not name the expected revision. The agent searched for it for 3 minutes, and cleanup cancelled the run. Root cause: runnerd restores a saved `session_open` session before it applies `run.attach` (`provider_backend.rs`: "execute() restores the durable provider before dispatching run.attach"). The restore launches the OpenCode proxy with the saved contract (revision `1`). Runnerd's environment already names the new run, so the proxy's `PAPERCLIP_RUN_ID` is the new run. `attach_run_in_place` keeps this provider for a changed contract (#19874) and sends `paperclipCompletionContract` revision `2` on `turn/start`. The proxy compared only the run id. The run id matched, so the proxy skipped `attachRun` and kept revision `1`. **Expected behavior** The continuation's first `paperclip_finish` with the current revision is accepted. If a claim has a stale revision, the error names the expected revision. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Use a native OpenCode agent with warm follow-ups (the default). 2. Start a task. While the agent works, post a follow-up comment, so that it queues. 3. Let the first run finish. Paperclip starts a continuation run with completion revision `2` and restores the saved OpenCode session. 4. The agent calls `paperclip_finish` with `contractRevision: "2"`. 5. Before this fix, the tool refuses it with "Semantic result completion contract revision does not match". The chat eval `steering.discard-queued-message` (runner-opencode) shows this in run events: `session.resumed` carries revision `2`, and both `paperclip_finish` results fail with the mismatch. ## What Changed - `opencode-app-server-proxy.ts`: record the contract that the session opened with. On `turn/start`, call `attachRun` when the run id changes or when the supplied `paperclipCompletionContract` differs from the session's contract. - `opencode-proxy-task-envelope.ts`: add `sameOpenCodeProxyCompletionContract`. - `opencode-server-driver.ts`: the stale-revision error now ends with `Use contractRevision "<expected>".`, like the criteria error. - Tests: a real-proxy regression for the restored launch, a driver test for the new error text, and a `repair-revision` mode in the fake OpenCode fixture. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run src/cli/opencode-proxy-input.test.ts src/drivers/opencode/opencode-server-driver.test.ts src/cli/opencode-app-server-proxy.test.ts src/cli/opencode-proxy-thread-read.test.ts` in `packages/paperclip-runner`: 88 passed. - Red/green: without the source changes, both new tests fail. `binds the current contract when a restored launch already names the attached run` never sees the finish call reach the controller. `names the expected revision in a repairable stale-revision tool error` does not find the expected revision in the error. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p packages/paperclip-runner`: no errors in the changed files. (My worktree is missing a link for `@paperclipai/paperclip-eval-kernel`, which causes unrelated errors in `src/eval/workflow-harness.ts`.) - End-to-end: the chat eval `steering.discard-queued-message` (runner-opencode) with this fix cherry-picked. The run link goes in a comment below. ## Risks - Previous-release story (`rules/upgrade-safe-run-state.mdc`): this change does not change a persisted shape. The regression test uses the saved-state shape: launch parameters from the saved run, environment and `turn/start` from the new run. A runnerd that does not send `paperclipCompletionContract` behaves as before, so the proxy keeps its launch contract. The proxy and runnerd ship in the same runner artifact. - The proxy can now call `attachRun` for the same run id when the contract changes. `attachRun` resets the per-run result state. This occurs only at `turn/start`, when no turn is active, and only when the contract is different. A result for the earlier contract is not valid for the new contract. - The error text changed. No code parses it. > 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 - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) in Claude Code, with tool use (shell, file edit, test execution). ## 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>