mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 07:12:00 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
89ea418e76
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Tasks can have an execution policy with a review stage that names an independent reviewer > - #20882 made a native worker's done report start that configured stage > - A worker can also report finished work as needs_review and list the review itself as the only blocking remaining work > - That report skipped the configured-stage check. The generic "needs_review requires a named reviewer" error made the worker file a separate review card, and the configured stage never started > - This pull request treats that report as finished work and gives the configured-stage guidance first > - The benefit is that the configured reviewer gates Done whichever way the worker phrases its finished report ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20882 **What happened** A task had a review stage for a human reviewer. The native worker built and verified the deliverable. It reported `needs_review` with `objectiveSatisfied: true`, all criteria satisfied, and one blocking remaining item: "Independent human review of the prepared website.html deliverable." The completion feedback skipped the configured-stage check because that item blocked completion. The generic needs_review error then told the worker to name a reviewer. The worker added a review attention request, and Paperclip made a separate "Review requested" card. `executionState` stayed null, and the configured reviewer was not assigned. **Expected behavior** On a task with a configured review stage, a worker that reports finished, verified work is told to report done. Paperclip then starts the configured stage with its reviewer. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a task with `executionPolicy.stages = [{ type: "review", participants: [{ type: "user", userId }] }]` for a native agent. 2. Have the agent report `needs_review` with a satisfied objective and the review as its only blocking remaining work. 3. Before this fix, the feedback asks for a named reviewer. The task gets a separate review card and no stage. ## What Changed - `native-completion-feedback.ts`: on a task whose configured review stage would start, a `needs_review` report with a satisfied objective and satisfied criteria counts as finished work. It gets the configured-stage guidance before the generic named-reviewer error. A review needed before the work can continue (objective not satisfied) keeps its own request path. Approval requests keep their own path. - `native-completion-feedback.ts`: a done report on such a task that still lists the review as outstanding gets the same guidance, not the generic "done report includes unfinished work" error. So the worker is not sent back to needs_review. - The guidance now says to report done without listing the review as remaining work or as an attention request. - Tests: two new cases in `native-execution-policy-review-stage.test.ts` use the recorded report shape. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/native-runtime/native-execution-policy-review-stage.test.ts`: 15 passed. The new recorded-shape test fails on master (red) and passes with this change (green). - `npx vitest run` for `native-completion-feedback`, `native-current-wake-completion-feedback` and `native-execution-policy-review-stage-race`: 42 passed. - Paid chat eval run on a combined throwaway branch: results are in a PR comment. ## Risks - On a configured-review task, a worker that reports a satisfied objective but has real non-review blocking work now gets the configured-stage guidance. That guidance says to report done only when the work is complete and verified, so the task does not close early. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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>