mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-08 12:33:05 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
5b99bdae47
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work done by AI agents. > - Native execution reports work completion through a saved result. > - Some native providers can build that result from their final message. > - This path can bypass the finish tool's publication check. > - A task can then be marked done without the document the user requested. > - This change checks publication again at finalization and status commit. > - Missing output uses the existing bounded repair path with specific feedback. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native provider returned a final message about a local Markdown briefing. It had not published a task document or a verified attachment. Its synthetic result claimed success. The server accepted the claim and marked the task done. A real PostgreSQL regression reproduced this on public master. **Expected behavior** A requested task document must have valid saved publication evidence before the task becomes done. The check must apply even when the provider does not call the finish tool. A plain answer still needs no document. An explicit document-free fallback requires the actual human rejection for the current unchanged request. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Request a Markdown briefing document on a task. 2. Complete a native turn with a synthetic `provider:opencode:agent-message` result and no published output. 3. Admit the result through the normal control-plane port and finalize it. 4. The old code marks the task done. The repaired code keeps it open and queues one repair with publication instructions. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced from public master `7d1e9b3477f12780e987c32fb8191d476c210fda`. Related: #18661 added the finish-tool publication guard. This change applies that guard to finalization. #18180 covers a different fallback problem: no final text. This change preserves native provider fallback generation and its saved claims. ## What Changed - Run the existing deliverable guard before accepting a native done decision. Keep the original provider result unchanged. - Route missing publication through the existing single incomplete-result continuation. Include the publication feedback in the wake. A repeated incomplete result uses the existing named recovery action. - Inspect publication through a typed safe projection of the accepted ledger. Keep whole-protocol validation at result admission. An authoritative done decision must pass publication checks even when its accepted ledger is partial. - Recheck publication under the status-commit transaction. Hold only matching proof rows with non-waiting share locks. Changed or locked proof uses the existing bounded status replanning path. - Permit an explicit document-free decline fallback only for the saved human rejection selected by the current continuation. Require the same original request, current saved description, source revision and source contract. Model prose or an unrelated old decision is insufficient. - Add real database controls for publication, plain answers, authenticated decline, stale or wrong decisions, bounded recovery, and deletion between assessment and commit. ## Verification - The first regression failed before the repair: the synthetic result marked an unpublished task done. The retained real PostgreSQL run took 21.846 seconds, including setup and cleanup. - Two description-edit regressions also failed before their repair: a description change after admission or at the commit boundary still let the old decline waive the newly required document. Both now keep the task open. The red run took 25.738 seconds. - The commit-race regression also failed before its repair: removing publication after assessment still allowed done. That run took 17.448 seconds. - All thirteen focused real database controls pass after the repair. They exercise the normal control-plane port, finalizer, semantic publication tools, saved human rejection and status transaction. Owned database processes, data and output storage are removed after each run. - All 469 tests across the seven relevant and affected suites pass on head `f8870469f9879a53551f0faaff0fe5b1234ea303`, based on master `c7390bef20`. The six-suite run passed 426 tests in 97.319 seconds including owned setup and cleanup. The unchanged reassessment-worker suite passed 43 tests in 48.901 seconds. All required current-head checks pass in [CI run 41937653209](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41937653209), including aggregate verify, typechecking, build, general and serialized tests, native Runner tests and all eight browser shards. Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 on this exact head, with no open findings. - Local scoped server typechecking reported no errors in the four changed files and 11 errors in reused dependency declarations and exports. That setup failure remains retained. Fresh current-head CI passes the full Typecheck + Release Registry gate and Build. Local typecheck is not claimed as passing. - CI on the previous head found one shared status-projection regression across Studio, routine, status-authority and worker controls. Those phases use opaque accepted ledgers. The correction inspects only publication references, preserves the accepted marker and bindings, and forces the publication check for an authoritative done decision. A new real commit control verifies that an empty accepted ledger cannot close a requested-document task. All original affected assertions remain unchanged. The retained failed run is [41934314437](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41934314437). - No provider call, paid campaign, staging deployment or eval regrade is part of this PR. No model, timeout, assertion, workflow, dependency or lockfile change. Focused suites: ```sh ./node_modules/.bin/vitest run --config "$PWD/server/vitest.config.ts" --root server \ src/services/native-runtime/paperclip-control-plane-port.test.ts \ src/services/native-runtime/native-completion-feedback.test.ts \ src/services/native-runtime/native-deliverable-feedback.test.ts \ src/services/native-runtime/native-skill-test-status.test.ts \ src/services/native-runtime/native-routine-status.test.ts \ src/__tests__/native-status-arbiter-corpus.test.ts \ src/__tests__/native-status-reassessment-work.test.ts ``` ## Risks A native result that previously closed a task without its requested output now leaves it open. The existing repair path can run once and then records a named recovery action. Database contention does not grant completion. The existing first-task decision gate still runs first. The conditional decline check is deliberately conservative; unmatched wording or missing authoritative source data does not waive publication. This change closes a false completion path. It does not establish why a provider omitted publication, prove a live provider repair, or qualify a full evaluation plan. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, assisted with diagnosis, code and controls. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Capabilities used: repository inspection, code editing, local code execution and GitHub tools. ## 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 described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal issue identity - [x] I have run relevant tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have documented the behavior and limits in this PR; no operator command or public API changed - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>