mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 07:12:00 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
7e8901aa60
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A native run on a remote sandbox can lose its Runner process.
Recovery then saves the sandbox files and puts an execution hold on the
task
> - The hold offers Retry. A person can also continue the task with a
new message
> - Many held tasks also have a pending decision: the question that a
parked turn asked, or an older connection request
> - Continuation admission refuses every continuation while a decision
is pending ("decision_pending"). The answer to that decision is not a
message, so admission defers it behind the hold ("execution_recovery")
> - So Retry waits for the answer and the answer waits for the hold. The
task shows a Retry that does nothing, and nothing continues it
> - This pull request lets a person's Retry pass an open question, and
lets the person's own answer continue the task through the hold
> - The benefit is that a task with a lost Runner and a pending decision
always has a control that works
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
On staging, the same-run retry of six remote native runs found the
Runner process gone (`process_not_running`, lifecycle `ready`). Each run
failed with `runner_remote_process_identity_unavailable`. Saved-work
recovery then recovered the sandbox files, and the task showed "Saved
work recovered. Retry or send a message to continue." with `canRetry:
true`. Four of these tasks also had a pending decision: the question
that the parked turn asked, or an older pending connection request. For
those tasks, Retry is deferred with `decision_pending`, and an answer to
the decision is deferred with `execution_recovery`. No control continues
the task.
**What did you expect to happen?**
Retry starts one new run. The person's answer to the pending decision
also continues the task.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. A remote native run asks the user a question and parks the turn.
2. The Runner process exits. The same-run retry fails with
`runner_remote_process_identity_unavailable`.
3. Saved-work recovery recovers the files. The task offers Retry.
4. Click Retry: the Retry waits with "A pending approval or question
must be resolved before this message can start."
5. Answer the question: the answer waits with "Waiting for execution
recovery. Your message is saved."
Refs #20838, #20853
## What Changed
- `admitExplicitNativeContinuation`
(`server/src/services/explicit-native-continuation.ts`): a task Retry is
no longer held by a plain pending question (`ask_user_questions`) or
connection request (`connection_intent`). Any interaction with approval
semantics still holds Retry: a plan review (`issue_document` target), a
governed tool action, a secret proposal, a connection authorization, and
other confirmations. A pending approval still holds every continuation.
A new message supersedes a plain question, as on master, and waits for a
decision with approval semantics.
- `admitExplicitNativeContinuation`: the person's own resolution of an
interaction (`mutation: "interaction"`, answered/accepted/rejected,
resolved by the same user) is explicit user input. It continues the held
task like a new message: a fresh session, the hold resolved as
`explicitUserContinuation` with the `interactionId`, and
`issue.execution_recovery_settled` activity. It never replays the failed
run. Governed tool-action confirmations are excluded. The existing
`readQueuedInteractionResponse` reads the answer.
- `heartbeat/queue.ts`: both admission calls pass the wake payload to
the admission.
- `buildExecutionContinuation`
(`server/src/services/execution-continuation.ts`): dispatch rechecks the
user authorization. It accepted an interaction receipt only through a
saved interrupt queue, so the answered successor failed with
`continuation_user_authorization_missing`. It now also accepts the
person's own answer: the interaction named by the durable authorization
was resolved by that user and not by an agent, and the authorization
names this successor run. The check does not depend on the run's current
trigger, so a later answer that replaces the trigger cannot invalidate
it.
- New API-level test
`server/src/services/governed-wait-runner-loss.test.ts` with the two
staging shapes (a parked question from the failed run; an older
connection request on a monitor wake). It checks that Retry starts
exactly one run and leaves the decision pending, that the person's
answer starts exactly one run and settles the hold, and that an answer
resolved by a different user keeps the hold.
- `doc/execution-semantics.md`: describes the rule.
## Verification
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/services/governed-wait-runner-loss.test.ts`: 5 passed. The answer
tests now also build the successor's continuation as dispatch does and
check that the agent receives the answer.
- Red for dispatch (first head, ac17aebe): both answer tests fail with
`continuation_user_authorization_missing`.
- Ponytail follow-ups: a two-answer test (the second answer waits behind
the successor; dispatch also holds with a replaced trigger) and 'keeps
Retry on hold while %s is pending' for four approval-bearing kinds. On
head 60beb773, 5 of these fail. Two more tests show that a new message
supersedes a plain question and waits for a plan review (both unchanged
from master). All 12 tests in the file pass now. The PR adds no code
comments; the rationale is in `doc/execution-semantics.md` and here.
- Continuation suites (execution-continuation,
execution-continuation-provenance, legacy-continuation-authority,
explicit-native-continuation, task-retry, governed-wait-runner-loss):
634 passed.
- Red on master (product hunks removed, test kept): 4 of 5 fail. Retry
tests: `successors: 0`, deferred `decision_pending`. Answer tests:
`successors: 0`, deferred `execution_recovery`. Every case asserts
`runError: "runner_remote_process_identity_unavailable"`.
- Related suites: explicit-native-continuation, task-retry,
workspace-recovery-admission, retry-workspace-continuity,
workspace-recovery-retry-copyback, workspace-recovery-fallback,
native-workspace-reconstruction, native-recovery-preparation-failure,
issue-thread-interactions-service. 957 of 959 passed. The 2 failures are
30 s `afterEach` hook timeouts in native-workspace-reconstruction; all
51 of its tests pass alone, and the same file on unchanged master shows
5 hook timeouts on this machine.
- `cd server && pnpm exec tsc --noEmit -p tsconfig.json`: passes.
## Risks
- Medium. A Retry can now start while a plain question or connection
request is pending; decisions with approval semantics still hold it. The
new run sees the open decision in its task context, and the decision's
answer still wakes the agent later. Approvals keep holding Retry, so
approval gates are unchanged.
- An answer now continues a held task in a fresh session. All other
admission gates still run: stop proof, saved-work recovery, workspace
repair, active execution, pause, budget and ownership. Only the user who
resolved the interaction can continue this way.
- This does not make recovery automatic. A task whose Runner was lost
still rests on the hold until a person clicks Retry or answers.
Automatic settlement of a parked governed wait is a separate change.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution
in an agent harness.
## 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>