mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-08 01:57:31 +01:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
5fdfd3f17a
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent tasks and their saved execution history. > - A continuation carries completed API receipts to prevent duplicate work. > - Repeated saves can copy large record bodies into each new provider prompt. > - The resulting command can exceed the durable PRP frame limit before useful work starts. > - This change projects large successful saved-record responses as compact references. > - The original receipts and authenticated user direction remain available. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A task with many saved document and comment responses can fail with `command_payload_too_large`. Same-run recovery can then show a runner identity failure that hides this first cause. Completed response bodies repeat content already stored in task records. **Expected behavior** Continue from saved records with completed-action evidence that fits the runner command. Keep user messages, answers and approvals intact. Keep the full original receipts. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Save 39 successful document, comment and task-write responses in a run's API receipt ledger. 2. Give each response a large record body. 3. Build and render a continuation, then queue it through the real durable PRP journal. 4. Before this fix, the regression throws `command_payload_too_large` with a 4.2 MB prompt. Related work: #16980 pages oversized assigned tool results. This change addresses earlier response bodies repeated in a later continuation. It does not change tool-result paging or protocol limits. ## What Changed - Project response data over 4 KiB for three known successful record-write operations. Keep record, revision and status metadata, HTTP outcome, receipt identity and a data digest. - Keep small, failed, unknown, mismatched and foreign-company results in their existing form. - Explain the reference format in shared prompt guidance and the execution contract. - Add database and real-journal regression coverage. Verify the original receipt ledger remains unchanged. The continuation service owns the projection. The shared adapter helper only explains the reference to native and legacy prompt consumers. There are no new dependencies, provider calls, timers or background scans. ## Verification - The unfixed database regression fails at the real PRP command limit with `command_payload_too_large`. - Continuation builder, native execution input and native continuation suites: 118 tests pass. - Shared prompt consumers: 142 tests pass. - Module boundaries and diff whitespace checks pass. - Greptile: 5/5 on `8109e7361c5b5e38f9aad35af9bf4ad7bdc5f338`, with no unresolved review threads. All CI checks pass. - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed. - Hosted verification: pending deployment. The source fix does not itself resume the affected hosted task. Local setup failures remain accounted for: the fresh checkout lacked an ignored root SDK link and embedded PostgreSQL library symlinks after an offline install that skipped lifecycle scripts. The maintained workspace-link helper, SDK build and platform hydration script repaired those prerequisites. A later test expectation assumed JSON insertion order across PostgreSQL JSONB; it now checks the digest against the unchanged stored receipt. These failures did not change runtime limits or recovery guards. ## Risks Large responses from these three successful operations now use explicit saved-record references in continuation context. Agents must read the record or source receipt when full content is needed. This is not a universal prompt-size limit: user history, unknown operations and other inputs retain their existing representation. No migration, permission, credential, provider-stop or replay policy changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`), xhigh reasoning, through Codex in T3 Code. Used for investigation, implementation and local verification. No subagents. ## 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 linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal task id - [x] I have run the targeted tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added tests and updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings - [x] I will address review comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>