mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-24 10:13:11 +02:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
837add0caa
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip keeps agent tasks moving through owned execution and durable waiting paths. > - A consumed review path gets one repair wake before board escalation. > - That wake records an instruction to save a new monitor or another real review path. > - The canonical wake builder omitted that instruction from the agent prompt. > - This pull request delivers it through the existing disposition-repair section. > - The repair limit and execution authority stay unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An agent opened a pull request and promised to watch CI and external review. It ended without scheduling a monitor. Its bounded review repair also ended without a maintained path, so the task became blocked for a board decision. The saved repair context contained the instruction, but the canonical wake payload and rendered prompt did not. **Expected behavior** The repair prompt tells the agent to save a one-shot monitor before promising another check. Both fresh and resumed sessions receive that instruction and the one-attempt limit. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a review-path recovery with `decideIssueReviewPathRecovery` for a task whose review path was consumed. 2. Pass its recorded context through `buildPaperclipWakePayload` and wake serialization. 3. Render a fresh or resumed prompt. Before this fix, it has the wake reason but no repair instruction. **Paperclip version or commit** Base: `9c442cf48e6`. Current head: `f38d65891c8d9f2b38eb76a8578e870debc2b1e6`. **Deployment mode** Observed on managed sandbox execution with the legacy Claude ACP adapter. The corrected canonical payload serves the shared adapter prompt path. Refs #15764 introduced the bounded exhausted-repair disposition. This change preserves that limit. Open monitor-retry work such as #17171 addresses an already scheduled check; this defect occurs before a check exists. Searches found no duplicate for this missing prompt field. ## What Changed - Build the review-path repair disposition in its owning recovery module, using the server instruction and fixed one-attempt bound. - Project it into the existing canonical `dispositionRepair` field. No new adapter field or execution protocol is added. - Ignore arbitrary replacement instructions and attempt-limit values. A pending repair keeps its instruction across a connection-pool retry that changes the wake reason. Ordinary wakes without the typed repair marker ignore raw instruction text. Existing legacy disposition repairs retain their values. - Add a regression across the real recovery decision, wake builder, serializer and fresh/resumed prompt selectors. Update execution guidance and the affected recovery maps. ## Verification - Verified red before the source fix: two regression cases failed because the instruction was absent; the sibling repair case passed. The same cases pass after the fix. - Passed 194 focused and safety tests across wake preparation, review recovery, adapter prompt handling, and database-backed liveness escalation. The connection-pool retry case also failed before its correction and passes after it. - Replayed the recorded incident wake through the fixed boundary. The old canonical prompt lacked its saved instruction. The corrected serialized prompt includes it with a 1/1 bound. This replay did not execute a provider turn or change the source task. Private evidence stays outside the repository. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` after the pool-retry correction. Passed `pnpm build` on final head `f38d65891c8d9f2b38eb76a8578e870debc2b1e6`. Map checks and `git diff --check` pass. - [Full CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40005890857) passed on that head: 54 checks passed and two optional checks were skipped. This includes the full test shards, typecheck, build, and browser suites. The local `pnpm test:run` attempt was stopped after the CI test shards passed. No complete local full-suite pass is claimed. - [Apex review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17353#issuecomment-6372160694) is 5/5 on the final head, with no open findings. The first review found the pool-retry case. Its regression and correction are included. The branch has no merge conflicts. - Test setup first required the plugin SDK build, then an empty credential-history database boundary. Those setup errors are not the claimed red. The temporary recorded-wake probe was removed before final validation. - Hosted follow-up acceptance is not run. The source task remains blocked and needs a retry after rollout. This PR does not claim that prompt delivery itself schedules a monitor or that every model will follow the instruction. ## Risks - This fixes instruction delivery. The agent must still save a valid monitor or another waiting path. The existing bounded escalation remains if it does not. - The wake stays a normal-model repair. It does not become status-only recovery and can continue useful work. Existing ownership, approval, budget, pause, and monitor admission gates remain in place. - No schema, credential, telemetry, API, model, or retry-budget change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, assisted with diagnosis, code editing, shell execution and verification. The exact serving model ID and context-window limit are not exposed in this session. ## 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 (194 focused and safety cases; full coverage passed in CI) - [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>