mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 07:12:00 +01:00
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents ask people for decisions with the runner's `request_human_input` tool, which creates a question or confirmation card > - The tool schema required `payload.version` to be the number 1 > - The server ignores the version the model sends and always stores version 1 > - Some models send `"version": "1"` as a string, so every call failed with "/payload/version must be equal to constant" > - This pull request accepts `1` or `"1"`, and lets the model omit the version > - The benefit is that the model's natural call creates the card on the first try, and a turn does not end with no card and no reply ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19405 (adds invocation examples for the same tool; it does not change validation). Refs #20134 (aligns the same tool's text limits). **What happened?** In a chat eval run on master `f4337bb5fb` (OpenCode runner, `deepseek-v4.1-flash`), the agent called `request_human_input` up to six times. Each call failed with `Invalid tool input: /payload/version must be equal to constant`. The agent's reasoning shows it sent `"version": "1"` and could not produce the number. In one case it then made the card with `call_api`. In two other cases the turn lost the card. This happened in `questions-and-approvals.reject-and-revise`, `goals.align-existing-work` and `assistant-connections.revoke-personal-grant`. **Expected behavior** A version field that the server overwrites must not block the call. The tool must still reject an unknown version and a questions card without a question form. **Steps to reproduce** Validate `{ interactionKind: "questions", payload: { version: "1", questionSet: {...} } }` against the live `request_human_input` input schema. Before this change, validation fails at `/payload/version`. ## What Changed - `payload.version` in the tool schema accepts `1` or `"1"` and is optional. Its description says Paperclip stores version 1. - A questions card no longer requires `payload.version`. It still requires `questionSet` or `questions`. - The payload description no longer tells the model to send `version:1`. - Regenerated the semantic tool contracts, the seeded eval catalog digest and the protocol manifest with the existing generator. - Added a regression test: number, string and missing version pass for live and scenario schemas; version `2` and a payload without questions fail. ## Verification - `npx vitest run src/protocol-actions/` in `packages/paperclip-runner`: red before the fix with the exact eval error (`/payload/version must be equal to constant`), green after (47 tests). - Focused runner tests for the tool bridge, semantic tools, mock control plane, codex semantic results, catalog and semantic tools: 231 passed. - `node scripts/generate-semantic-contracts.mjs --check`, `generate-semantic-action-catalog --check`, `generate-protocol-manifest --check`, `generate-replay-goldens --check`: current. - `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check`: unchanged. - Paid chat eval on a temporary branch with this change: see the comment on this PR. ## Risks - Low risk. The server already writes `version: 1` into every interaction payload created by this tool (`paperclip-runner-tool-authority.ts`), so no stored shape changes. - Previous-release story: no persisted run, session or launch state changes. Saved tool receipts keep the input they recorded. A retry with a different version form under the same idempotency key is a different input, as before. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), agentic coding with tool use 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>