mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 07:12:00 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
a589b74fbf
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - People talk to their agents in chat, and the chat guidance tells the
agent how Paperclip works
> - Chat evals showed three gaps in that guidance
> - The agent explained a task's purpose from titles only, because the
guidance gives no goal link and no instruction to read goal descriptions
> - The agent built a full landing page with an invented product name,
because the chat guidance has no rule to ask for a missing name first
> - The agent posted a real question card or drew a text mock when the
person asked to see a card, because the guidance names the design guide
and ux-lab pages only in general
> - This pull request adds three short rules to the chat guidance
> - The benefit is grounded purpose answers with links, one necessary
question instead of placeholder work, and links to the real reference
pages
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
In chat evals (OpenCode runner, DeepSeek flash): (1) "Why are we doing
this website task?" got an answer from titles only, with no goal links
and without the parent goal's stated reason. (2) "Build a landing page
for my new product." produced a full site named with a placeholder; the
agent never asked for the product name. (3) "Show me the standard
question card" made the agent post a real question card. "Show me how
chat looks when a tool request is denied" made the agent draw a text
mock and probe real tool requests.
**Expected behavior**
(1) The agent reads the task, project, goal and parent goals, gives the
reason that the goal descriptions state, and links each record. (2) The
agent asks one free-text question for the missing name and uses the
answer in the brief. (3) The agent links the design guide question card
or the denial ux-lab page and says they are synthetic presentation
fixtures.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run the chat evals goals.explain-purpose,
questions-and-approvals.necessary-question,
developer-labs.component-reference and
developer-labs.interaction-fixture on master.
2. Read the reply and tool events of each run.
## What Changed
- Chat guidance: goal link format `/<prefix>/goals/<goalId>`, and a rule
to explain a task's purpose from its saved goal chain (GET
/api/goals/{id}, follow parentId), link every record, and say so when
the task has no goal.
- Chat guidance: ask for a missing name (for example the product name on
a landing page) with `request_human_input` (`questions`, one required
free-text question) before building or delegating; never use a
placeholder name.
- Chat guidance: when the person asks to see a component or chat state,
link the design guide (question card states) or the named `/ux-lab/...`
pages instead of creating a real card or a mock, and say they are
synthetic fixtures.
- Tests: new red/green tests in `agent-conversations.test.ts`; they also
check that the named UI routes exist in `ui/src/App.tsx`.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/agent-conversations.test.ts` (62
passed); the new tests fail on master because the text is absent.
- `npx vitest run` for heartbeat-context-summary,
heartbeat-chat-task-link, board-access-denial, task-markdown,
current-wake-comments and heartbeat-list tests (119 passed).
- The affected chat evals are rerun on a temporary branch; results are
recorded in the PR conversation.
## Risks
- Low risk. Guidance text only. The chat directive grows by about 1.6
KB.
- The missing-name rule is narrow (a name the work must carry). It must
not cause extra questions for clear requests.
## 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>