mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-31 14:16:39 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
b3c2172d41
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work assigned to agents. > - Product E2E stories ask for useful user-facing results. > - Classic runner and deployed QA reuse the same service approve/decline task prompts. > - The service returns a receipt marker that belongs in a saved briefing document. > - State that destination explicitly and ask for the document link when complete. > - The deployed decline path also needs the same durable final-reply proof as Plan and Stop. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18222. Builds on the merged reply observer in #18248. **What happened?** The shared service tasks ask for titles and a “verification code” without specifying that the code belongs in the document or asking for its final link. A native QA attempt created its briefing but then repeatedly failed the completion tool’s array validation. Those invalid arguments remain a separate observed failure; the wording change does not establish their cause or relax validation. Source inspection also found that the declined-action oracle requires a projected comment even when the settled native thread renders a durable final message. **Expected behavior** Ask for page titles and the service receipt code in the saved briefing, then a document link. After a declined action, require the existing explanation-only fallback without another service call. **Steps to reproduce** Run the shared service-approve/service-decline stories through the classic runner or QA Product E2E adapter. ## What Changed - Clarify the natural-language task for both shared service stories: put page titles and service receipt code in the document and provide its link. - Use the reloaded run-bound final reply for QA service declines. Pass an explicit native receipt to the existing decline oracle; do not synthesize issue comments. Require the final native run to start after the saved decline and keep exact decision, truthful explanation, no unread marker, zero calls and unchanged connection checks. - Keep classic callers on their existing attributed-comment path. No internal tool instructions are added to the user prompt; ownership, service data and model/runtime limits stay strict. ## Verification - Decline regression observed RED: two cases reject a valid saved native explanation without projected comments. After the repair, 79 focused tests passed across native reply, decline guidance, agent evidence and journey contracts. A two-successful-run control rejects the earlier receipt and accepts the later one. Negatives cover stale/wrong run, wrong agent/task, missing final proof, summary/unsettled/hidden output, false explanations and unread service data. - Product E2E TypeScript and `git diff --check` passed. - Live protected-action qualification is required after merging this and the companion private service/cleanup fixes. The previous failed result remains failed; this is a bounded task-clarity experiment, not a claimed model or completion-schema repair. - Current-head Greptile and Paperclip reviews are 5/5 with zero open threads. CI initially failed the unrelated agent-chat-projects cleanup POST with a PostgreSQL lock timeout after its assertions completed. One bounded retry passed on unchanged source; all current-head gates passed at `64bc169e147290ed4dbaa18221e0268362ce81ee`. The original failing attempt and its logs remain available. The task-clarity change is still a bounded experiment; the observer repair addresses a demonstrated storage-assumption defect. ## Risks A clearer task can still fail with the selected model. All acceptance checks and completion input validation remain strict; a saved briefing alone cannot qualify the complete journey. Only test prompts and test evidence code change. Missing or contradictory native evidence fails closed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this session. Used reasoning, source editing, shell execution and test inspection. ## 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>