mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 08:22:20 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
4970d5ed3d
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators attach company skills to agents from the skill library. > - Attachment first reads the agent's skill snapshot to preserve other assignments. > - That read materialized and validated repository files for the entire library, even in read-only mode. > - The response also treated resolved runtime versions as stored pins. Saving could then fail with beta pins disabled. > - This pull request makes version-cache inspection lightweight and returns the stored assignment choices. > - The benefit is a responsive attachment flow that preserves Latest and explicit pins. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Adding a repository skill to an agent could stall before the save request. The prerequisite snapshot read projected or checked every file in every installed repository skill. Once it returned, an existing Latest assignment could become a version pin in the save payload. The server then rejected that save when beta skill pins were disabled. **Expected behavior** Reading assignments must not prepare all repository snapshots for execution. Adding a skill must preserve the other assignments and their Latest or pinned choices. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Install repository-backed skills with stored immutable versions and cold disk caches. 2. Assign one repository skill to a Claude agent with Latest selected. Leave beta skill pins disabled. 3. Open another skill, select Add to agent, choose the same agent, and save. 4. Observe the expensive prerequisite read and the beta-pin rejection after that read completes. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced from master at `ac9459bae3329395f10bc81c638a374eef152baa`. **Deployment mode** Observed in hosted staging. Reproduced with a disposable local instance, embedded PostgreSQL, and the Claude local adapter on macOS arm64 with Node 26.4.0. Related: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9995 adds a separate read-only assignment endpoint for peer-agent access. This fix keeps the existing configuration-gated snapshot and its permissions. ## What Changed - Respect read-only listing for current and pinned version caches. Check directory and entrypoint safety without projecting repository contents, reading all support files, or updating cache access records. - Keep complete snapshot restoration and byte validation at run preparation. Missing caches are restored from stored data. Corrupted files are repaired there. - Return stored assignment version choices in both list and sync responses. Keep runtime version details in the snapshot entries. - Add database-backed regressions for cold and warm reads, pinned versions, execution repair, and unsafe entrypoints. Add HTTP regressions for save round trips and explicit pins. - Update developer documentation and verification recipes. ## Verification - Red: both latest and pinned read-only cache regressions failed on the original code. The original code created caches during listing. - Red: the HTTP save-roundtrip regression returned 400 with the beta-pin error. The explicit-pin regression also failed. - Green: the updated API and cache suites passed all 145 tests. The three related company-skill service suites also passed. - Real browser: attached a repository skill to a paused test agent with another repository skill already set to Latest and beta pins disabled. The success toast appeared. The skill's Agents tab retained the assignment after reload. API reads confirmed both assignments remained unpinned and no repository version caches were created. - Local synthetic fixture: six skills share a 606-file repository snapshot. A cold HTTP skill-list request completed in 241 ms. This is local evidence, not a staging latency measurement. - Real service comparison on that fixture: the baseline cold list wrote 3,648 version/cache files. A warm baseline list read 3,642 version files and wrote six access records (457 ms). The fixed warm list read and wrote zero version/cache files (61 ms). Both services returned the same 16 library entries. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. The final API edit also passed the server typecheck. - `pnpm build` passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed. - The broad `pnpm test:run` invocation reported six failures in the untouched `tool-gateway-service.test.ts` suite. An isolated rerun passed all 59 tests. The broad run was stopped after recording those failures, so it is not a green full-local result. The PR CI matrix separately passed those suites. Greptile completed on the current commit with 5/5, zero comments, and no open threads. - One CI shard was interrupted by runner shutdown, with no failed assertion in its log. A single failed-job retry passed on the same commit. The aggregate CI gate passed. All current-head PR checks are complete with no failing or pending checks. - This PR does not claim that the fix has been deployed to staging. ## Risks - Settings reads check cache locations and entrypoints. They defer full support-file validation to execution. Regression tests verify that execution still repairs corrupt bytes and restores missing versions. - The response now distinguishes stored pins from resolved runtime versions. Explicit historical pins remain intact. Company, configuration, connector, and beta-pin authorization gates keep their existing behavior. - No schema migration or dependency change. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and browser tools. The exact runtime build ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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>