mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-31 06:04:11 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
7a7ade4b93
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people assign work to agents and use their saved results. > - The Cloud onboarding journey tests this handoff through a real parent and child task. > - The child can publish a correct file while the parent names that file without linking it. > - The existing journey correctly rejects that reply because the user cannot download the named result from it. > - This pull request makes the scripted parent request explicit about real Markdown links and returned attachment paths. > - The independent artifact and parent-link checks remain unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18266 and #18258. **What happened?** A Cloud onboarding attempt produced a correct child artifact and saved document. The parent then named the child, document key, and filename in inline code. It omitted the attachment URL. The attempt failed with `onboarding_parent_result_links_missing`. **Expected behavior** The parent's final reply must link the saved child results. The file link must use the real published attachment reference. **Steps to reproduce** Run the existing explicit Cloud onboarding journey. A reply that only names the file must remain a failure, even when the child artifact is correct. **Paperclip version or commit** The branch starts from `965184d2968f40b1183803529b88f288264c832f`. ## What Changed - Ask the parent for real Markdown links in its final reply. Use the published attachment's returned content or download path. Do not invent IDs or URLs. - Add a filename-only reply to the existing negative oracle cases. - Document this scripted fixture requirement. ## Verification - Focused onboarding tests: 79 passed. - Shared task, campaign, and contract tests: 66 passed. - Existing artifact and native-completion Node checks: 137 passed. - `git diff --check`: passed. - Harness typecheck, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`: passed after building the existing workspace dependencies. The initial missing-declaration and local-IPC setup failures remain recorded. - The full local database test suite was not rerun. Required repository CI runs the broader suites on Linux. - Required repository CI passed on the exact PR head. No paid model calls or Cloud operations were run for this patch. - [Initial CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41027635545/attempts/1) failed one unchanged retention timing test (3310 ms versus the strict 3000 ms bound). The unchanged case passed once on an isolated local Postgres17 fixture. One failed-jobs-only rerun passed in [attempt 2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41027635545/attempts/2). The original failure remains visible. No timing threshold or retention source changed. - The previous live attempt stays failed. Local tests do not prove that a model follows the revised request. A new bounded live attempt must establish that result. ## Risks - The extra instruction can still be ignored by a model. The unchanged oracle will reject missing links. - This changes the fixture definition hash. Historical attempts retain their original source and result. - No product runtime, API, approval policy, model profile, budget, or cleanup behavior changes. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, ultra reasoning, with code execution and repository tools. Model metadata was confirmed in the parent task. The context window size is not exposed. ## 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 - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>