mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
6cfb69b4b0
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A control-plane restart can land between two durable writes. It leaves an in-progress record owned by a dead process. About 69 restart-chaos PRs fixed that shape one subsystem at a time. > - The durable ownership plan (#19831) replaces those fixes with one owner stamp, one prover, write-ahead intents and one reconciler. Phase 0 must first list every in-progress record kind and measure how fast turns start today. > - Without the inventory, Phase 1 cannot choose one stamp or one proof. Without the baseline, no later phase can show that it kept turns fast (invariant 8). > - This pull request adds the Phase 0 inventory, the TTFT, boot and restart-recovery baseline, and the run-log-only driver that produced the baseline. > - The benefit is one reviewed map of 83 record kinds to plan sections A–G, and measured p50/p95 budgets per adapter. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19831. Refs #19838 (the TTFT anchor that the baseline uses). **What is the problem?** Phase 0 of the durable ownership plan has no inventory of in-progress record kinds and no speed baseline. **What is the expected outcome?** Two reviewed documents in `doc/plans/`, plus a repeatable way to measure the baseline again in later phases. **Why does it matter?** Phase 1 cannot start without them, and every later phase's exit criteria compare against the baseline. ## What Changed - `doc/plans/2026-11-07-ownership-inventory.md`: - 83 durable in-progress record kinds (94 reader rows) across native runtime, environments, workspaces, accounting and the wake queue; - each kind with its table and column, writer, states, owner, release rule, proof, obligation, invariants and plan sections A–G; - the overlaps, the merge decisions and the zero-downtime upgrade record kinds. - `doc/plans/2026-11-07-ttft-baseline.md`: - TTFT, agent boot, pre-turn steps and restart recovery per adapter (codex, claude, opencode), local, cold and warm, p50/p95; - restart recovery from the overnight chaos evidence, the slowest steps ranked, and the gaps. - `tests/restart-chaos/ttft-baseline.ts`: an on-demand driver on the chaos supervisor. It reads the run log only, never Telemetry, and always stops its embedded Postgres. - `tests/restart-chaos/ttft-baseline-stats.ts` and its unit tests: pure percentile, boot, pre-turn ranking and recovery statistics. No runtime behavior changes. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/restart-chaos/vitest.config.ts tests/restart-chaos/ttft-baseline-stats.test.ts` - `node scripts/typecheck-test-projects.mjs tests/restart-chaos` - The baseline numbers come from the driver run named in the report. To reproduce them, follow the report's "Method" section. - The owner spot-checked the inventory's file:line claims at `f2d8a51027`. One example: `processLossRetryCount` has no writer, and `heartbeat/recovery.ts:2675` is its only reader. ## Risks - Low risk. This adds documentation and an opt-in test driver. Nothing runs in CI except the pure stats unit tests. - The driver spends a small amount of provider credit when someone runs it by hand. - The baseline sample is small (6 per cell). The local host was shared with other worktrees, so the p95 tails include load. The report states both. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), via Claude Code with tool use, code execution and five parallel read-only subagents for the inventory. ## 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>