mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
46bf913fb9
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A person can steer a running Codex or Pi turn, and since #19970 a queued follow-up steers automatically > - Restart recovery (#19962) delivers a steered message that the model did not read before the restart, exactly once for Codex > - Pi gives the run log no read evidence for a steer, so after a restart a Pi steer that the model already read can arrive again > - The fix needs changes to the closure-pinned Pi distribution, which waits for the next Pi re-qualification > - This pull request records the limit and the follow-up plan so they are not lost > - The benefit is that the next Pi re-qualification can include the definitive fix ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What is the documentation problem?** The Pi steering limit after a restart, and its planned fix, were only in pull request text and session notes. **Where?** `doc/plans/2026-11-07-pi-steer-restart-limit.md` (new). **What should it say?** Codex delivers an unread steered message exactly once after a restart. Pi can duplicate a message it already read, and never loses one. The note also gives the reasons, the follow-up plan (option A), its costs, and the rejected options. Refs #19962, Refs #19970 ## What Changed - New `doc/plans/2026-11-07-pi-steer-restart-limit.md`. It covers the limit, why Pi has no read evidence, the follow-up (forward Pi's native user `message_start` through pi-acp, acpx, the sidecar and Rust into a `userMessage` item), its re-qualification costs, and the rejected options. ## Verification - Documentation only. Read the note. The facts match `packages/paperclip-runner/src/steering-delivery.ts`, `patches/pi-acp@0.0.33.patch`, `pi-closure-pins.ts` and `rules/acpx-profile-identity.mdc`. ## Risks - None. Documentation only. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use. ## 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>