mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
95d476c57b
## Thinking Path - #20100 proposed sending only the changed files on per-turn follow-ups, with the repository seed held inside Daytona in a snapshot or a volume. It asked for one measured experiment before building. - Snapshot and volume operations were blocked by our Daytona key's permissions. A restricted key with those permissions now exists, so the experiment has run. - This PR records the numbers and the decision in the design doc. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20100 **What happened?** The #20100 design's seed-location choice was unmeasured: snapshot build time and volume read speed were both open questions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run the SDK timing of direct upload, volume extract, and snapshot build and create on the paperclip seed (58.7 MB gzip) in Daytona `us`, 2 vCPU. **Expected behavior** The design doc states the measured winner, the per-turn saving, the one-time cost, and the work needed to build it. ## What Changed - `doc/plans/2026-11-08-incremental-per-turn-workspace-upload.md`: - The status now reads: measured; snapshot chosen; not built. - New "Experiment results" table: - direct upload: 6.4 s per turn; - volume: 6.8 s per turn, which rules it out; - snapshot: about 2–3.5 s per turn, after a 177 s build per seed generation. - Findings: fork is unsupported, compression is exhausted, and the snapshot builder runs as `daytona` and does not extract archives. - New "Work to build the snapshot seed" list: lifecycle, sandbox creation, verification and fallback, expiry and cleanup, and rebuild policy. ## Verification Docs only. Every Daytona resource the experiment created was deleted, and an account-wide listing confirmed none remained. ## Risks None at runtime. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`, Anthropic), 1M context window, tool use and code execution, via 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>