mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-08 01:57:31 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
629abc8509
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - #19260 shows the saved-work recovery step on a task, and records why
a recovery attempt failed.
> - The review of #19260 found three gaps after the PR merged.
> - A scheduled recovery offered Retry while a Retry preparation was
already pending.
> - Classified failures could get a misleading `provider_error` cause.
> - The new cause text in the board handoff had no test.
> - This pull request closes these gaps.
> - The benefit is a Retry button that matches what is allowed, and
causes that name the correct subsystem.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #19260
**What happened?**
After #19260, a task with a scheduled recovery and a pending (`issued`
or `processing`) Retry preparation showed an active Retry button. The
server only coalesces the second request. Also, a failure that recovery
classified as `archive_unsafe`, `source_unavailable` or
`snapshot_verification_failed` still recorded a provider cause. The
handoff text could then read "last failure: archive_unsafe, cause:
provider_error".
**Expected behavior**
Retry is not offered while a Retry preparation is pending. Only the
generic transient fallback records a provider cause.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Request a chat Retry on a task while its saved-work recovery is
scheduled.
2. The task projection returns `retry_scheduled` with `canRetry: true`.
**Paperclip version or commit**
master at b1d00eec.
**Deployment mode**
Authenticated cloud deployment (staging).
## What Changed
- `task-interruption-presentation.ts`: a scheduled recovery returns
`canRetry: false` when a Retry preparation for the same run is pending
with a valid deadline.
- `workspace-recovery.ts`: a cause is recorded only for the generic
transient fallback (`provider_unavailable` or `export_interrupted` from
an unclassified error).
- Tests: presentation `canRetry` with and without a pending preparation;
the board handoff text with and without a cause.
## Verification
- `task-interruption-presentation.test.ts`,
`system-recovery-state.test.ts` and `workspace-recovery.test.ts` pass
(419 tests). One workspace-recovery case failed once under full-suite
load. It passes when it runs alone.
- Server typecheck passes.
## Risks
- Low risk. This change affects presentation and diagnostic labels only.
Retry admission still checks all gates on the server.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, with tool use and code
execution in Claude Code.
## 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>