mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-28 20:21:50 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
d40f9ac377
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people delegate work to agents and approve proposed work. > - The onboarding first task asks for scope, proposes a task, and waits for a human decision. > - An answer to its opening question supplies scope. It does not approve a proposal. > - Task creation already checks the saved proposal decision. > - Native completion used the general completion policy and could mark the onboarding parent Done without that decision. > - This PR checks the trusted decision before completion feedback and again when the native status is committed. > - The first task stays in review until a saved human decision permits closure. Ordinary completion and acknowledged refusal keep their current behavior. > - The Product E2E guard also retains closed scalar evidence so future failures show which boundary condition was observed. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #17914. Profile compatibility follow-up to #17922. **What happened?** A native onboarding run can submit a valid low-risk Done result after only the opening answer. The native finalizer then marks the first task Done even though no human has accepted or rejected a proposal. **Expected behavior** The opening answer must not permit completion. A trusted saved proposal decision must permit it. A saved rejection permits acknowledgment and closure, but does not authorize new work. A later pending proposal must keep the task in review. **Steps to reproduce** Create a server-owned onboarding first task with an answered opening question, no proposal decision, and a valid low-risk completion contract. Pass a Done result through native completion feedback, the control-plane port, and the finalizer. Before this fix, the persisted status is Done. The regression expects In review. Ordinary completion and acknowledged rejection pass as controls. ## What Changed - Share the trusted latest-proposal and human-response checks with completion admission. Keep task creation acceptance-only. - Refuse premature native completion feedback. Keep an already saved premature result in review during finalization. - Check the decision again under the existing task and run locks before committing Done. - Cover accepted decisions, saved refusals, forged context, pending or changed proposals, and a real database race. - Retain a closed scalar receipt when the existing E2E pre-acceptance guard fails. Validate and display it without task content, IDs, filenames, or raw rows. Preserve the original failure, blocked dependents, and historical reports. - Include the evidence module in the journey definition hash. Bind the receipt to its exact failure code and check its closed keys against the full type. - Repair base-branch profile drift found by the full harness check: include the active Copilot v66 fixture in image hashing and update stale Pi version/hash expectations from #17922. Keep all older image inputs and strict hash checks. - Update the onboarding feature and agent access maps and E2E evidence documentation. ## Verification - Semantic regression before implementation: one failure and two passing controls on PostgreSQL 18. The failed assertion observed Done instead of In review. - The local database uses an owned disposable container with an immutable image digest. Actual migrations, feedback, control-plane port, finalizer, and status commit run against PostgreSQL. A temporary test adapter replaces only the embedded database transport because this host has exhausted its PostgreSQL semaphores. - Native control-plane suite: 55 tests passed, including 17 new controls. Existing task-creation admission: 25 passed. Existing completion feedback: 19 passed. - Credential-free E2E support: 206 Vitest suites passed, 4,407 tests passed, and two skipped. All 137 Node support checks passed. Harness typecheck passed. - The failure-receipt regression had 11 failed assertions before capture was implemented. Two failure-code binding assertions fail without their gate. Eight placement/binding cases first validate the receipt-free control, then reject the misplaced receipt. - The untouched base reproduced the three profile compatibility failures. The narrow repair passed all 83 affected tests before the full harness run. - Private workflow preparation and credential-free onboarding preview: nine compatibility checks passed. Ownership, recovery, evidence, shared-contract and workflow compatibility: 77 passed. The actual provider preview also confirms immediate success deletion, earlier declared failure eligibility, limits, and zero retries without credential access. Map checks and git diff checks passed. - Required repository typecheck passed for the product fix. The combined branch build passed. The local full repository suite was stopped after repeated PostgreSQL startup failures; a separate initdb probe confirmed host SysV semaphore exhaustion. No shared IPC resources were changed. [Hosted CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40591020873) passed the full database suites, typecheck, build, runner checks, serialized suites, and browser shards on final head `1ac4c23605a03bfd1f1f8a017b14ce29fda85f6b` (55 success, two expected skips, one advisory neutral). - Independent source review approved the product guard, atomic race regression, evidence contract, and maps with no actionable findings. Both automated reviews are 5/5 on final head `1ac4c23605a03bfd1f1f8a017b14ce29fda85f6b`; prior findings are fixed and resolved. Final CI is green and the PR is conflict-free. - No Cloud workspace, provider call, release publication, or deployment is part of this verification. These tests do not identify a historical Cloud failure or qualify live onboarding. - Local dependency installation uses the existing CI-generated lockfile from #17811. No lockfile change is included. ## Risks - Existing onboarding runs without a trusted saved proposal decision remain in review even when the agent reports success. This is the intended approval boundary. - Decision changes can race completion. The status commit checks the decision under its existing locks and uses the existing status-race recovery path. - A saved refusal permits closure only. Creation admission still rejects it. - Evidence readers reject malformed receipts and unrelated failure codes. The version-1 key registry is checked against every receipt field at compile time. Existing attempts do not gain evidence after the fact. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`), ultra reasoning, through Codex. Used repository inspection, code execution, and collaborating coding agents. The runtime did not report a context-window size. ## 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 references) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket 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>