mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
2a16be36ab
## Thinking Path - Per-turn remote sandboxes stay the default while warm reuse (#20048) is on hold. - On the paperclip clone, a per-turn follow-up spends about 13 s in `workspace_sync.transfer`, though its changes pack in 0.5 s: every fresh sandbox receives the whole 70 MB (gzip) seed again, at about 5 MB/s from the controller. - The coordinator asked for a design that uploads only changed files into a fresh sandbox, with a full-upload fallback, measured against the spans. It also asked to build it only if the implementation is bounded and safe. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20048 **What happened?** Per-turn follow-ups on large repositories wait about 13 s re-uploading the full workspace seed even when almost nothing changed (pack 0.54 s, transfer 13.3 s, time to first token about 31 s). **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run `tests/restart-chaos/ttft-baseline.ts --env daytona --workspace-repo <paperclip clone>` with per-turn sandboxes. 2. Compare `workspace_sync.pack` and `workspace_sync.transfer` on the follow-up turn. **Expected behavior** A follow-up uploads only its overlay into a sandbox that already holds the seed, falling back to the full upload when unsure. ## What Changed - `doc/plans/2026-11-08-incremental-per-turn-workspace-upload.md`. It contains: - the measured span table and the size analysis (220 MB archive, 70 MB gzip, about 5 MB/s); - the expected saving: about 12–13 s per follow-up, time to first token about 31 s → about 18 s; - a design keyed by seed generation with a content-hashed manifest, using a Daytona snapshot (preferred) or a Daytona volume to hold the seed; - the overlay-only turn flow, with a verified fallback; - one bounded experiment to choose the seed location before building. - Not built yet: both seed locations need provider capabilities (snapshot build time, volume read speed) that must be measured first, so the implementation isn't bounded until the experiment picks one. ## Verification Docs only. ## 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>