mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 07:12:00 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
5c440d8889
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The chat catalog evals check that agents in chat keep their user
promises
> - Two cases sent a scripted message whose referent was not clear in
the conversation
> - The agent then answered a different question, so the eval did not
test its promise
> - This pull request makes each scripted message name the thing it
refers to, without telling the agent what to do
> - It also replaces a reply keyword check with structural checks
> - The benefit is that the two cases test their real promises again
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
`questions-and-approvals.accept-one-proposal`: the person accepted a
"Create Acorn launch checklist" card. The CEO created the task once and
replied with a new offer: move the task into todo and execute it. The
eval then sent the same bare "Yes, go ahead with that." again. The CEO
read it as a yes to the new offer and moved the task to todo. An
assignment wake made a third run, over the declared bound of two.
`tasks.share-private-task`: the eval sent "Share this private task with
Riley." in the standing CEO chat. In that chat, "this" is the chat task
itself. The CEO tried to share its own chat task and never linked the
private task. The grader also matched reply words (Riley, owner/share
phrases).
**Expected behavior**
A repeated acceptance must refer to the same proposal, so that the eval
can show that one acceptance creates exactly one task. The share request
must name the private task, so that the eval can show that the agent
routes the owner to the task's sharing control and does not change its
audience.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run
`chat-features.runner-opencode.local.questions-and-approvals.accept-one-proposal`.
The CEO reply ends with a new offer, and the bare repeat accepts it.
2. Run `chat-features.runner-opencode.local.tasks.share-private-task`.
The CEO acts on its chat task, not on the private task.
## What Changed
- accept-one-proposal: the second human message names the accepted card
by its visible title (`Yes, go ahead with the "Create Acorn launch
checklist" request.`). The grader checks this exact scripted message.
All other checks stay: one task, still in backlog, one decision bound to
the first reply, two runs. Oracle version is now
`paperclip.chat-catalog.accept-one-proposal.v2`.
- share-private-task: the query is now `Share my private task "Private
launch task" with Riley.` The change is recorded in the manifest
`changedFields`, pinned in its test, and the inventory digest is
updated.
- share-private-task: the reply keyword check is removed. The grader
requires a rendered link to the named private task. `verifyResult` has
the owner open that link and open the task's Share control ("Who can
access this task"). Then it confirms that Riley is still denied. The
audience check also rejects a grant to any person who is not the owner.
Oracle version is now `paperclip.chat-catalog.share-private-task.v2`.
- Calibration tests: a bare repeat or a "move it to todo" repeat fails;
a todo task fails; reworded handoffs pass; a link to the chat instead of
the task fails; grants to Riley or to another person fail; public
visibility fails.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts` on
the case tests, contract, consistency and every chat-catalog-domains
test that imports the changed modules: 14 files, 285 tests pass.
- `node --test
tests/runner-e2e/chat-full-catalog-testops-manifest.test.mjs`: 10 pass.
- `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check`:
no change.
- `npx tsc --noEmit -p tests/runner-e2e`: no errors in the changed
files. Other errors come from the local worktree dependency links.
- Offline regrade of the retained share-private-task run: the run fails
the handoff check (it linked only the chat). The same run with a link to
the private task passes.
- Paid eval runs for both cases are pending.
## Risks
- Low risk. Only eval code, the scenario query and catalog metadata
change.
- The share-private-task grader no longer reads the reply. A false
success claim with a correct link and no saved grant is not caught by
code. A reviewer must read the reply in the paid run.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use, extended
reasoning.
## 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>