mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
b4842df1e4
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Phase 2 of the durable-ownership plan moves in-progress record kinds to one shared ownership path, guided by chaos data. > - The first data doc (#19927) covered local waves only. Remote runners, leases and sandboxes need a Daytona wave. > - This pull request adds the results of one Daytona wave to the data doc. > - The benefit is that Phase 2 and Phase 3 prioritize remote kinds from measured data. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19927 (data doc), #19934 (claimed-wake settle), #19863 (speed budgets). **What is the problem?** The Phase 2 data doc had no remote data. **Where is it documented?** `doc/plans/2026-11-07-phase2-reconciler-data.md`. **What should change?** Add the Daytona wave's per-kind violations, settle latency, failures and speed numbers. ## What Changed - Added a "Daytona wave" section: 6 tasks with K1, K2 and two K4 outages of about 575 s. 5 of 6 passed, and R6 was clean. - Recorded the t03 failure: a Retry was cancelled by the company-wide accounting gate (Phase 3 scope). - Recorded the claimed-wake leak again (#19934 fixes it) and remote settle times of 76–107 s. - Corrected the earlier note about the image content-ID mismatch. ## Verification - Wave `w-20261108T012041-s9301`; the numbers come from a copy of the kept database and the read-only ownership sampler. - This is a docs-only change. ## Risks - Low. Docs only. The samples are small and the doc says so. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, in Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits). ## 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 - [ ] 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>