mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-10 01:50:13 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
7941f6b051
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Native runs use the Paperclip runner with drivers such as OpenCode
> - When a provider rejects the selected model, the product shows "Model
unavailable" and offers a model choice
> - OpenCode reports provider HTTP errors as `APIError` with the message
under `data`, not at the top level
> - The runner then reported "Provider turn failed", so an invalid model
ended as a generic adapter failure
> - This pull request classifies OpenRouter's invalid model ID with a
closed provider-failure category, and makes the server keep that
classification
> - The benefit is that a person sees "Model unavailable" and the real
provider message, and can choose another model
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A chat evaluation selected a model ID that OpenRouter does not know.
OpenCode reported `turn.failed` with `error: { name: "APIError", data: {
message: "<model> is not a valid model ID", statusCode: 400,
isRetryable: false } }`. The run was saved with `errorCode:
adapter_failed`. The task chat showed "The OpenCode run failed before it
completed." and no "Model unavailable" marker. The provider notice said
only "OpenCode session failed.".
**Expected behavior**
A non-retryable rejection of the selected model is saved as
`native_provider_model_rejected`, so the product shows "Model
unavailable" and the model choice. The notice shows the provider's
message.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Configure an OpenCode agent with an OpenRouter model ID that does not
exist.
2. Send the agent a message.
3. Before this change, the run fails as `adapter_failed` and the notice
says "OpenCode session failed.".
## What Changed
- `drivers/opencode/provider-failure.ts`: a non-retryable OpenCode
provider error whose message says the model is not valid (`not a valid
model`, `model_not_found`, model not found or not supported) gets the
closed category `model_unavailable`. A provider that allows a retry
keeps the existing category.
- `native-session-runtime.ts`: a non-recoverable failure with
`model_unavailable` is a model rejection. The runtime reads the closed
category, not provider text.
- `native-session-executor.ts`: a non-recoverable
`NativeProviderTerminalFailure` that the runner marked as a model
rejection is saved as `native_provider_model_rejected`. Before, every
such terminal was saved as `native_provider_terminal_failed` before the
marker was read.
- `drivers/opencode/opencode-server-driver.ts`: the provider notice
summary shows the provider message from `data` when there is no
top-level message. Provider text is not used as the turn failure
message, so it does not reach `run.error` or Sentry.
- Tests: provider-failure mapping (retryable and non-retryable), runtime
classification by category, driver notice summary with no failure
message, and an executor test for the saved code and terminal
disposition.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run src/native-session-runtime.test.ts
src/drivers/provider-failure.test.ts src/drivers/opencode` in
`packages/paperclip-runner`: 16 files, 412 tests passed.
- `npx vitest run
src/services/native-runtime/native-session-executor.test.ts` in
`server`: 1,152 tests passed.
- Negative controls: reverting the provider-failure mapping, the runtime
check, or the executor branch each makes its new test fail.
## Risks
- Low risk. Classification uses a closed category and a runner-set
marker, not provider text.
- The model check on the provider message is text-based inside the
OpenCode mapper. A provider that uses "not a valid model" for another
reason with a non-retryable error will show "Model unavailable".
- Provider text appears in the notice summary, as provider notices
already did for top-level messages.
> 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
- 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>