mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 15:55:46 +01:00
DottaandClaude
a46b9ac724
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Native runs (Paperclip Runner with an ACP harness, such as Claude)
can stop because the provider account runs out of its usage allowance
> - The ACP harness reports this as a "terminal limit failure".
Paperclip blocked the task behind a board hold that called the session
state ambiguous, and the only way forward was a manual Retry
> - The provider also says when the limit resets, for example "resets
Nov 12, 6pm (UTC)" for a weekly limit. Paperclip read only clock-only
resets ("resets 2am"), so the agent-level wait fell back to one hour.
Each later wake for the agent then hit the limit again and blocked
another task
> - This pull request reads calendar resets, says on the hold when the
limit resets, and requests the task's Retry itself at that time when the
reset is reported and bounded
> - The benefit is that a usage limit no longer needs a person to click
Retry, and the agent's other tasks wait instead of failing one by one
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A native ACP run failed with `native_provider_usage_limit` ("ACP agent
reported a terminal limit failure. You've hit your weekly limit · resets
Nov 12, 6pm (UTC)"). The task went to `blocked` with a board-owned hold.
The hold said "Inspect the original provider failure and explicitly
resolve the ambiguous session state". Nothing resumed the task after the
reset. The agent-level `provider_limit_wait` recorded "no reset time was
reported, so Paperclip waits one hour", so every hour another wake
dispatched, hit the limit, and blocked another task. In one 48-hour
window on a staging instance, this blocked 7 tasks for one agent.
**What did you expect?**
When the provider reports a bounded reset, the task waits and continues
after the reset, like the existing `provider_limit_wait` path. When the
reset is unknown, the task fails with a clear message and a working
Retry.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a native ACP agent until its provider reports a weekly or session
limit with a reset time.
2. Look at the task: it is blocked with an "ambiguous session state"
hold.
3. Wait past the reported reset: the task stays blocked until a person
clicks Retry.
Refs #20666 (other recovery work in the same staging census; not changed
here)
## What Changed
- `provider-quota-reset.ts`: parse calendar resets such as "resets Nov
12, 6pm (UTC)", "resets Jul 17th at 4:30 PM (America/Chicago)" and
"Resets on August 2, 9am (UTC)". A past date rolls into next year. An
impossible date (Nov 31) is refused. Clock-only parsing is unchanged.
This also fixes the agent-level `provider_limit_wait` reset and the
legacy `provider_quota` reset for these messages.
- New `native-runtime/provider-limit-resume.ts`:
- `readNativeUsageLimitReset` reads the reset only from the run's own
durable events. The last turn event must be a provider-observed
`turn.failed` with a `rate_limit` or `quota_exhausted` provider failure,
and the reset must be at most eight days out.
- `requestProviderLimitResumeRetry` asks for the task's Retry
(`requestTaskRetry`, `initiatedBy: "provider_limit_reset"`) on behalf of
the user who requested the run, or the run's accountable user for
automatic wakes. It is idempotent per run and records its outcome on the
hold. At most three automatic Retries follow one another without a
successful run.
- `registerProviderLimitResumeWork` is a scoped deadline owner (shared
work scheduler, no polling). Each active usage-limit hold is due at its
reset. Startup rebuilds it from the holds, and the executor notifies it
in the hold's transaction.
- `native-session-executor.ts`: for a terminal usage limit, the hold and
run failure detail say when the limit resets and whether Paperclip
retries then, instead of "ambiguous session state". The evidence records
`providerLimitResetAt`.
- `task-retry.ts`: accept `initiatedBy: "provider_limit_reset"`. Its
activity is recorded as system actor `provider-limit-reset` on behalf of
the user, like `restart_recovery`.
- `doc/execution-semantics.md`: document the wait and its limits.
Previous-release story: holds saved by the previous release carry
forward. At startup the owner reads each active
`native_provider_usage_limit` hold. It rewrites the hold's message with
the reset when the reset is known and still ahead, and it requests the
Retry at the reset. Holds whose reset is unknown, more than a day in the
past, or that have no accountable user keep their Retry and are recorded
as not requested, so they are not read again.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run server/src/services/provider-quota-reset.test.ts` — 4
tests. Three fail on `origin/master` code (calendar resets return
`null`), all pass with this change.
- `npx vitest run
server/src/services/native-runtime/native-provider-capacity.integration.test.ts`
— 5 tests on embedded Postgres:
- the existing usage-terminal test (both replay modes) still blocks with
a Retry, and no automatic Retry is requested without a reported reset;
- "waits for a reported usage-limit reset and then requests the task's
Retry once": the hold says when the limit resets, an old-release hold is
rewritten, nothing starts before the reset, one Retry receipt is created
for the accountable user at the reset, and a second pass does nothing.
Fails on `origin/master` executor code;
- "starts the Retry from the hold's own deadline": a real delivery
coordinator rebuilds the deadline from the hold and calls Retry dispatch
once, after the reset;
- "leaves a visible Retry when no user is accountable for the run".
Fails on `origin/master` executor code.
- Focused regression suites pass (642 tests): `task-retry`,
`quarantined-task-retry`, `heartbeat-native-restart-suspension`,
`native-startup-retry.integration`, `provider-failure-classification`,
`heartbeat-provider-limit-wait`, `deferred-execution-receipt-work`,
`chat-run-publications`, `native-runner-restart-recovery.integration`,
`native-remote-retry-admission`.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` passes.
- `pnpm verify` selected a broad run (exit 2, because the docs file is a
global CI input). CI supplies the broad coverage.
## Risks
- The automatic Retry uses the accountable user's authority for
automatic (system) wakes. It is the same Retry the hold already offered
that user, and dispatch still checks Retry authority, stop proof, saved
work and action reconciliation. It is never broader than a click.
- A provider that keeps reporting resets that do not restore capacity
gets at most three automatic Retries in a row; then the Retry stays
visible.
- The deadline owner reads all active usage-limit holds at startup
(limit 500 rows). The number of such holds is small.
- Not changed: the agent-level wait still holds new wakes for at most
one day, as before.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with
tool use (shell, file edits, read-only staging API reads). Extended
reasoning enabled.
## 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 <noreply@anthropic.com>