mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 22:56:58 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
f35eb1e5ef
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Invariant 8 of the durable-ownership plan says turns must start fast. #19863 added per-run speed budgets that write `run.performance.budget_exceeded` to the run log. > - The Phase 2 chaos data (#19927) showed follow-up TTFT about 3x over the claude budget. > - The cause is measurement scope. A follow-up comment posted during a live turn waits for that turn to end, and TTFT is anchored at the comment. The budgets came from idle follow-ups. > - This pull request judges the TTFT budget from run creation and reports the wait separately. > - The benefit is that budget breaches point at real start-up slowness, not at time spent behind a turn the user is already watching. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19863 (speed budgets), #19927 (Phase 2 data), #19852 (startup sub-spans), #19888 (warm default). **What happened?** In two local storm waves, C1 follow-up runs breached the claude warm TTFT budget (p50 27.6–29.9 s against 9.5 s). Their spans show `comment.to_run_created` at 6–62 s (waiting for the live turn), then session resume at 1.4–3.8 s and submit-to-first-event at 2–5 s. Codex without the wait was about 4.8 s, the same as the warm-follow-up baseline. **What did you expect?** The budget should judge start-up latency, which is what its baseline measured. The wait behind a live turn should be visible but not judged. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a local chaos storm with C1 tasks. 2. Read `run.performance.budget_exceeded` rows with metric `ttft` for `issue_commented` runs, and compare them with each run's `comment.to_run_created` span. ## What Changed - `native-run-trace.ts`: the TTFT budget check measures from run creation (start of `heartbeat.queue`, or end of the ingress span). The TTFT span itself does not change. - `native-speed-budgets.ts`: breaches can carry `inputWaitMs` (TTFT only). - `tests/restart-chaos/ttft-baseline-stats.ts` and `ttft-baseline.ts`: the wait behind a live turn is its own measured step (`inputWait`), next to the full TTFT and the TTFT from run creation. The TTFT table gains a "Wait behind live turn" column. The full comment-to-first-token time stays the user-visible metric. - `doc/run-log-events.md` and the plan's speed-budget section describe the rule. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/native-runtime/native-speed-budgets.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/native-run-trace.test.ts`: 43 pass, 2 new. `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/restart-chaos/vitest.config.ts tests/restart-chaos/ttft-baseline-stats.test.ts`: 12 pass, 1 new. They cover a follow-up under budget after a 60 s wait (no breach), a follow-up over budget (breach with `inputWaitMs`), and queueing after run creation still judged. - Server typecheck passes. ## Risks - Low. This is a run-log-only change (AGENTS.md §5.7): no Telemetry and no span attributes change. - A slow wait before run creation is no longer a TTFT budget breach. The TTFT span still records it, and the breach payload names it. Admission holds after run creation are still judged. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, in Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits). ## 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 - [ ] 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>