mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-24 10:13:11 +02:00
75fcb0b3fc
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The server sends unexpected run failures to Sentry through
`reportRunFailure`
> - A Claude ACP run can fail because the provider rejects the stored
credential ("Invalid API key"). The ACP agent then sends a typed
`access` terminal failure.
> - The Claude adapter already classifies this failure as
`claude_auth_required`. The run is blocked, and the responsible user
gets a reconnect request.
> - Sentry also records each of these runs as "ACP agent reported a
terminal access failure.". This duplicates a signal that the user
already gets, and it hides real defects.
> - This pull request adds one narrow exclusion for this proven provider
auth state, next to the existing quota and Codex capacity exclusions.
> - The benefit is less Sentry noise, and all other access-shaped
failures stay visible.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #14886 (related: it routes ACP access failures in recovery, not in
Sentry reporting).
**What happened?**
Staging Sentry recorded a run failure "ACP agent reported a terminal
access failure." for 8 events. All events had
`agent_adapter=claude_local`, `error_code=claude_auth_required`, and a
typed provider access failure ("Invalid API key · Fix external API
key"). The failures stopped when the provider accepted the credential
again.
**Expected behavior**
A provider auth failure that the adapter types and classifies is a user
action state. The product already shows it to the user. It must not go
to Sentry in `unexpected` mode.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Configure a `claude_local` agent with an ACP runtime and a credential
that the provider rejects.
2. Start a run.
3. The ACP agent ends the turn with `category: "access"`. The run fails
with `claude_auth_required`.
4. See a new Sentry run-failure event.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Claude Code (`claude_local`, ACP lane).
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/run-failure-report.ts`: add
`isAcpProviderAccessFailure`. It skips a report only when all of these
are true: the reporting mode is `unexpected`, the run status is
`failed`, the error code is `claude_auth_required` or
`acpx_auth_required`, `resultJson.terminalSessionFailure.category` is
`access`, the phase is not `setup`, and the run has no signal.
- `server/src/services/__tests__/run-failure-report.test.ts`: add
regression tests for the staging shape, eight near-miss shapes that must
still report, and the setup and `all` mode paths.
## Verification
- Red: without the predicate, the two new "keeps ... local" tests fail
(`2 failed | 266 passed`).
- Green: `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/services/__tests__/run-failure-report.test.ts
src/services/__tests__/run-failure-diagnostics.test.ts` gives `383
passed`.
- `pnpm exec tsc --noEmit -p server` shows no errors in the changed
files.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change only removes Sentry events. It does not change
run status, recovery, or user notices.
- A real defect that the ACP agent wrongly types as `access` with a
Claude auth code is not reported in `unexpected` mode. Set
`PAPERCLIP_SENTRY_RUN_FAILURES=all` to see these events again.
- Codex and other ACP adapters do not map `access` to an auth code, so
their access failures still report.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), run through Claude Code
with tool use (shell, file edit, Sentry and GitHub connectors).
## 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: Devin Foley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>