mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-31 06:04:11 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
8035f8b245
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Product E2E tests exercise real user workflows through the browser. > - The onboarding journey requires a human to accept one proposed child task. > - A live agent tried to create the child before it saved a proposal card. The product correctly rejected that action. > - The scripted request named the required result but did not name the proposal tool or require its saved receipt. > - This pull request makes that handoff explicit. It keeps the existing human approval and independent result checks. > - The benefit is a clearer scripted workflow without a change to product authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18288 and #18266. **What happened?** The agent treated the opening task request as a step toward acceptance without first saving a proposal. It then stopped after child creation was denied. Its visible response referred to a pending proposal, but no proposal card existed. **Expected behavior** The agent saves a native confirmation card, checks its receipt, and waits for the human to accept it through the browser. It must not record its own approval. Only an accepted card authorizes the child task. **Steps to reproduce** Run the scripted Cloud onboarding journey. Give the canonical onboarding task its first task request. The observed agent skipped the saved proposal and tried to create the child. Model behavior varies, so this is a fixture guidance change rather than a deterministic product defect claim. **Paperclip version or commit** Fixture base: `7a7ade4b9360aaf8e1a2808bb2b1a752c080f564`. The serving product was Core `965184d2968f40b1183803529b88f288264c832f`. **Deployment mode** Testing Cloud workspace with native Codex. This pull request selects no product release or deployment. ## What Changed - Name the existing `request_human_input` confirmation or revision-bound checkbox contract and `wake_assignee` policy in the parent request. - Require a saved pending-card receipt. Require corrections when tool arguments are rejected. - Forbid self-approval. Require the actual accepted human card decision before child creation. - Document this scripted handoff. Keep the child brief, final download links, browser actions, and all grading assertions. ## Verification - Focused onboarding and Cloud journey tests: 79 passed. - Shared evidence, campaign, and contract tests: 66 passed. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck`: passed after building the existing workspace type dependencies. - Credential-free preview under a network-deny guard: passed with zero external calls. Its preparation plan matches the base fixture. - `git diff --check`: passed. - No prompt-string test was added. Existing tests continue to enforce approval order, child scope, independent file checks, and real result links. - Full local repository build and database suites were not repeated for this fixture text change. Required PR CI must pass before merge. - The original live result remains unchanged. This local work does not prove that a later model run will comply. ## Risks - The model can still ignore the instructions. A new real campaign must prove the workflow. - More explicit guidance makes this a scripted product journey. It is not a model discovery benchmark. - There are no product runtime, schema, credential, model, budget, or approval-policy changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, exact model `gpt-6.1-sol`, ultra reasoning effort. Parent runtime metadata confirmed this model. Context window size was not reported. Used source inspection, local code execution, and an independent agent review. ## 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>