mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-07 07:23:08 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
ee3ed0117e
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent runs depend on adapters translating Paperclip configuration into each agent runtime's native configuration > - The OpenCode local adapter passes configured models through the `--model provider/model` argument > - OpenCode only resolves that argument when the model id exists in the provider's runtime `models` map > - Valid provider-served model ids missing from OpenCode's bundled catalog therefore fail locally with `Model not found` > - This pull request registers the configured model in the injected runtime configuration without overwriting explicit provider definitions > - The benefit is that uncataloged routing variants and newly released models resolve while cataloged models retain their metadata ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I can reproduce this on current `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip's OpenCode adapter rather than the provider or local configuration. ### What happened? OpenCode local runs failed with `Model not found` when a configured `provider/model` id was valid at the provider but absent from OpenCode's bundled model catalog. OpenRouter routing variants such as model ids ending in `:nitro` are one example. ### Expected behavior Any configured provider-served model id should resolve when Paperclip starts OpenCode, including ids not yet present in the bundled catalog. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Configure the OpenCode local adapter with a valid provider/model id that is absent from OpenCode's bundled catalog. 2. Start an agent run. 3. Observe that OpenCode rejects the `--model` value with `Model not found` before the session starts. ### Paperclip version or commit Current `master` before this change. ### Deployment mode Local dev using the OpenCode local adapter and an existing provider API key. ### Installation method Built from source. ### Agent adapter(s) involved OpenCode local. ### Database mode Not database-related. ### Relevant logs or output `Model not found` ### Additional context Reproduced with OpenCode 1.15.5. No duplicate or related public GitHub issues or pull requests were found. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for sensitive information and no secrets or PII are included. ## What Changed - Register the configured `provider/model` id as an empty custom model entry in the injected `opencode.json` provider configuration. - Preserve explicit model definitions from user configuration and `PAPERCLIP_OPENCODE_PROVIDERS`. - Skip registration for model strings that do not use the `provider/model` form. - Add focused coverage for uncataloged models, explicit definitions, and invalid model strings. ## Verification - `cd packages/adapters/opencode-local && pnpm exec vitest run src/server/runtime-config.test.ts` — 14 tests passed. - `cd packages/adapters/opencode-local && pnpm exec tsc --noEmit` — passed. - Manual reproduction with OpenCode 1.15.5: the uncataloged OpenRouter routing variant fails without the injected model entry and resolves with it. ## Risks - Low risk: the empty entry deep-merges with catalog metadata for known models, and existing explicit model definitions take precedence. - The behavior is limited to syntactically valid `provider/model` configuration values in the OpenCode local adapter. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact runtime model `gpt-5.6-sol` (context-window size not exposed by the runtime), with reasoning, tool use, terminal execution, and code-editing capabilities. ## 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 Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>