mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 07:10:34 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
46414fcfa4
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The chat catalog uses a fixed source and explicit execution conditions. > - A correct timeline response failed because its completed edit and attached command result were not recognized. > - Company credential setup can require a real human approval after the secure save. > - The controller must declare that optional approval and its run bounds before it admits the source. > - This pull request pins the reviewed source and caps native catalog overlap at two. > - The next run can test these conditions without treating local controls as native acceptance. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #19357, #19086, #18971, #19093. This follows the prior fixed-source catalog pin. It changes only controller metadata, admission, tests, and load policy. The complete catalog and separate core feature PRs remain unmerged. ## What Changed - Pin immutable source `fe547be84826b4611d3ba9ee1a7d7aa0bd0a2843`, tree `a23723ea5244e6ce8cee11e9c4b476acb6978fcd`. - Advance only timeline v10 to v11 and Company v11 to v12. Add the declared Company proposal helper to its source closure. - Declare Company minimum two and maximum three native runs. Retain two base human inputs and permit at most one independently verified UI approval. Retain its original 480000ms attempt. - Carry the literal Company-only approval marker from the descriptor into the manifest. Reject foreign markers, changed bounds, and a mismatch with static source task metadata. - Cap native catalog execution at two workers. Keep the external lane serial and retain zero retries. - Keep all244 requests, contexts, expected outcomes, model, clocks, credentials and other case bounds unchanged. ## Verification - Source:421 focused controls across seven suites pass. Full runner E2E TypeScript check passes. - Explicit model-free approval UI canary passes one test with three local scenarios. It checks accepted approval, wrong human, and failed response. The first sandbox attempt stopped at Chrome launch; the allowed execution passed. - Controller:40 manifest, adapter and reconciliation controls pass. - SDK506 inputs remain byte-identical to the accepted registry `efa70621e9fb42aa185f7ee616a1a726aa3eccb367e67e28817cedf26ef2ade8`. - Launcher and trusted private evidence wire remain byte-identical. Source contract/flow accounting changes are explicit. - Source descriptor SHA256: `50e90d8c02ad57f444e27b522efe694db9734d47bdbc3a058475af77bac8b2ca`. - Controller manifest SHA256: `0447315601ed21ba15d6ea0ecd7fb89bc79ad6262db2594cd12ac774aa8d6c21`. - Review the two changed rows. The next planned experiment selects timeline and Company once at cap2 before a full ten-case run. No native run on this source has passed yet. - Exact controller head `d49dfc59ab7fddfe1a1de7e81bdb9c4e13400f30`: normal CI has56 successful checks and three configured skips. Protected `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` both pass. Greptile5/5 and zero open threads are verified for this head. ## Risks - Original timeline5056 and Company5057 remain FAILED. Timeline5056 supplied the correct account; the local revised check passes its diagnostic only. Company5057 saved the secret but left the binding approval pending. - Company native3 completion within480s is unproved. This change does not raise its clock or claim to fix latency. - Two-worker execution is a changed load condition. It does not prove a concurrency cause, reliability, or eight-worker qualification. - Secret journeys require independent semantic safety review before pass credit. The documented closing-comma warning and arbitrary metadata-prefill classifier limitations remain follow-ups in the functional secret PR; a native failure is not waived. - Candidate core PRs remain unmerged. The full-catalog196/244 admission gate remains fixed. Local controls do not qualify all244 journeys. - Local checks use Node26.4.0. They do not replace actual AWS runtime qualification. - The separate Paperclip Review app remains queued while its assigned task waits for maintenance. It has no completed assessment. GitHub reports `UNSTABLE` and `MERGEABLE`; this is not an all-checks PASS claim. No review retry or staging mutation was performed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`), with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. The host does not expose an exact context-window size. No model or paid provider was called for local controls. ## 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>