mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-28 20:21:50 +01:00
Dotta
b25f3e2af8
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage agent work through tasks. > - First-task onboarding asks a new agent to propose work before it starts. > - The user must accept a saved proposal before the agent can create its child task. > - A native agent can ask for approval in a question card, which does not record proposal acceptance. > - The skill names confirmation cards but does not show their native tool arguments. > - This change adds executable native proposal recipes and checks their real approval path. > - The task admission rules and Product E2E assertions stay in place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A fresh onboarding agent asked the user to approve a child task through an Approve/Revise question. The question looked like a decision, but its answer cannot authorize child creation. The first-task skill teaches native question calls for interviews and names proposal confirmation cards without showing the native mapping. **Expected behavior** The agent should create a confirmation card for a single-task proposal, or a checkbox card bound to the saved plan revision. Only the saved human acceptance should admit the child task. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start first-task onboarding with a native agent. 2. Choose one task and ask the agent to propose a child before it starts work. 3. Have the agent use a question card with Approve/Revise options. 4. Answer Approve. Child creation remains blocked because no proposal confirmation was accepted. Related public context: #17940, #13517. ## What Changed - Show the native `request_human_input` arguments for confirmation and plan-bound checkbox proposals. - Explain that question answers supply scope and cannot grant proposal authority. - Resume the agent after either acceptance or rejection, and use new proposal keys for revisions. - Parse the shipped recipes and execute them through the real native tool authority and interaction service. - Verify that pending proposals, agent-only acceptance, and an answered Approve/Revise question cannot admit child work. - Use the existing isolated PostgreSQL test helper when a local test database is supplied. - Fix the required clean Grok npm-install check to prefix synthetic revision identifiers with `g`. The former all-numeric, leading-zero identifier was invalid SemVer and caused a reproduced `ETARGET` failure. Customer release versions are unchanged. ## Verification - Red: both new executable recipe checks fail against the preceding skill. - Green: 44 focused tests pass with zero skips against a task-owned PostgreSQL server. The actual tool authority and approval service are exercised. - Human acceptance of either recipe admits the child. Agent-only acceptance does not. Answering the question leaves the issue set unchanged. - Red/green real HTTP checks prove rejection saves the assignee continuation, starts no extra model run, and still denies child creation. - `git diff --check` passes. - Full repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the final approval-guidance revision. - The first full local test attempt used an unmigrated external fixture and was stopped after the cause was confirmed. A new migrated fixture resolved that setup error; the second full attempt reached its explicit 10-minute limit before finishing. Both attempts are preserved and are not claimed as passing. The temporary owned PostgreSQL container was removed. The complete Linux CI workflow passed on the final PR head. - The exact synthetic-version failure was reproduced with real npm and an empty local packed registry. The new maintained regression keeps the invalid-version negative control and installs corrected numeric-hash and normal-hash controls. All 27 existing Grok helper tests and three offline registry-boundary checks pass. - Final head `52d0b92a00dcb0653b6fb48415cfaea979b8f21f`: [CI 40706933035, attempt 1](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40706933035) passed; 55 successful checks, two skipped and one neutral. Greptile is 5/5 for this exact head with no unresolved threads. The original failed build remains preserved. - Live fresh-workspace acceptance has not passed yet. It follows the reviewed testing rollout; this source test does not prove model compliance. ## Risks The change guides model tool selection. An agent can still ignore the skill. Product admission remains the authority, and the live journey must still verify human approval, native child execution, downloaded artifact bytes, context reuse, and cleanup. There is no schema or API change. The CI helper changes only temporary verifier versions and preserves the existing registry integrity, install, lifecycle, and isolation checks. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning, source inspection, tool use, and code execution. The host does not expose its configured context-window size. ## 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 - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge