DottaandPaperclip
985d3b12b6
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents use task monitors to resume work after a future check. > - The runner rejects monitor arguments that fail the tool schema. > - It returned a generic error with no field or repair guidance. > - An agent could treat a repairable call as a scheduling outage and block its task. > - This pull request adds safe repair guidance and shows the nested request shape. > - Agents can correct the call and confirm a saved schedule before they yield. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15446, #16686. **What happened?** A rejected native `set_task_monitor` call returned `invalid_tool_call` with only “Paperclip rejected this semantic tool call.” The agent could not identify the invalid field. A retry could fail again and leave unfinished work without a scheduled wake. **Expected behavior** Reject invalid arguments before any mutation. Give the provider bounded schema locations and clear repair guidance. A corrected call must save a monitor and allow one wake without duplicate effects. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Call `set_task_monitor` with `idempotencyKey`, `nextCheckAt`, and `notes` at the top level. 2. The schema rejects the call because scheduling fields belong inside `monitor`. 3. Before this change, the provider received no guidance about the required shape. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against master `35c75b56d4` with a failing Rust regression. **Deployment mode** Source checkout. This affects the native runner tool bridge. ## What Changed - Add monitor-specific repair guidance to the runner's existing safe schema error path. - Keep feedback within 512 bytes and omit submitted values and unknown field names. - Show the nested monitor request in the production tool description. Refresh generated contracts and catalog identities. - Test flat and nested invalid input, private value handling, and unchanged authorization errors. - Test rejection, correction with the same key, saved schedule and audit, receipt replay, and one timer wake with real PostgreSQL and the native tool authority. - Update execution documentation and the task verification recipes. ## Verification - Red/green: the Rust provider error regression failed on master because monitor repair guidance was absent. It passed after the fix. - Passed: 29 PostgreSQL monitor and scheduler integration tests. These use the real tool authority and scheduler, with a no-op process agent for wake delivery. - Passed: the native Codex server vertical-slice test. It runs the rebuilt Runner binary with a fake provider and checks durable results and session resume. - Passed: map structure checks, Rust formatting, and `git diff --check`. - Passed locally: full repository `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and all 392 Rust library unit tests. - Passed on commit `3b667ad24763c1828edd48f56ef7a10766aeb946`: [CI run 39290889768](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39290889768), including all server, Runner, serialized, browser, typecheck, build, and canary gates. Across the PR, 56 checks passed and four conditional checks were skipped. No check remains pending or failed. - Greptile: 5/5 on that exact commit. The check concluded success, with no review comments or unresolved threads. - The duplicate local `pnpm test:run` attempt did not complete. It was stopped after the full CI suite passed; it is not counted as a local full-suite pass. - The first PostgreSQL attempt could not bind localhost inside the shell sandbox. It passed with normal localhost access. The first broader Rust attempt had 37 socket-permission failures and 355 passes; all 392 passed with localhost access and no code change. - Live model recovery was not run. Local execution policy did not authorize an extra acceptance run through the signed-in provider account. This PR does not include a deployment or recovery of an existing task. ## Risks - Error feedback must not reveal submitted values. Tests cover private values, unknown keys, nested constraints, length bounds, and unchanged generic authorization errors. - This changes guidance only. It does not relax the schema, retry calls automatically, or change scheduling authority. - A new runner binary and refreshed provider contract must reach the target instance before agents receive this guidance. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact runtime suffix and context window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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>
5.7 KiB
navigation
| navigation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Task creation and lifecycle
People create, assign, organize, discuss, and finish tasks. A task retains its owner, project, priority, history, and outputs as it moves through the work lifecycle.
Implementation: new task, task list, task detail.
Agent access: companion.
Sub-features
create: capture a title/request with the intended agent, project, and attachments.organize: filter, sort, group, and navigate tasks without losing the selected context.properties: change status, priority, assignee, project, and relationships where authorized.discussion: persist comments, references, and files on the task.completion: distinguish backlog, active work, review, blocked, done, and cancelled outcomes.
How to get to it (user POV)
new-task
Use New task from the global launcher, task list, or project task view.
task-list
Open /issues or a project’s Issues view; legacy /tasks links redirect.
task-detail
Open /issues/:issueId from a row, mention, or direct link.
Driving it with Playwright and the Paperclip CLI
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use a disposable project. Persistence checks can assign work to Me or leave it unassigned; execution checks additionally need an invokable test agent. Record whether a real or simulated harness handles execution.
new-task
Automated: creation dialog is component coverage with mocked requests.
Manual: Create a uniquely named task with an agent and project. Open its resulting link and reload. Confirm text, attachment, assignment, and project persisted, and verify execution started only when the task and agent are eligible.
Creation is request-first: enter Describe a task…, choose the assignee and project, and submit Create task. A standalone title field is not always shown. Use a human/unassigned task to verify persistence without invoking a model.
task-list
Automated: task-list helpers cover search URLs, pagination, deduplication, and presentation constants. The suite does not render the page or exercise filtering, grouping, opening a task, and returning; those interactions still need a running-browser check.
Manual: Seed human-created, agent-created, scheduled routine, human-initiated chat-channel, and creator-less tasks. Confirm automation is hidden by default, show agent-created tasks reveals it, reload preserves the choice, and Clear filters hides it again. Verify list and board search with automation newer than the human results, and expand contextual ancestors/subtasks without promoting unrelated automated roots. Repeat in project task lists. Agent profiles and task-detail subtasks retain complete history.
Manual: Filter by status and assignee, change grouping/sort, open a task, and return. Verify the correct records and selected view survive navigation and reload. Include an empty result and a failed request.
task-detail
Automated: task detail covers component behavior, while issue service covers server contracts.
Manual: For a disposable task owned by a legacy agent, have its current run
assign the task to a human with status In review. Verify that assignment and
status persist, that the current run finishes without issue_reassigned, and
that slow workspace restoration does not turn the task Blocked. Try a later edit
from the outgoing run and verify rejection. Repeat a board
reassignment and confirm that the outgoing run still stops.
Manual: Add a comment and edit authorized properties. Reload and verify history, actor, and values. Complete a disposable task and inspect its deliverable; reopen through an available action and confirm the next execution follows current policy.
Manual: Ask a standard native agent to schedule a future check on its current task. Reload and confirm the persisted monitor. After the agent yields, verify one later wake and a consumed schedule. For malformed-call recovery, use the agent access recipe and verify that schema feedback supports a corrected call before a wait is claimed.
Manual: Add an ordinary Board comment while a task retry is queued or running. Confirm that the same execution keeps working and receives the saved message, without a second executor or an implicit move to Todo. Repeat with a parked retry and verify that fresh instructions can supersede it. Explicit Stop must still cancel active work. The comment route regressions and HTTP/process and interrupted-cancellation tests cover these boundaries locally; deployed runner acceptance remains separate.
Gotchas
-
Priority remains an API field, but ordinary priority UI editing is hidden.
-
A status label alone does not prove that the requested work exists.
-
Single-assignee and atomic checkout rules still apply when tasks are created from different hosts.
-
Use coordination, steering, and documents for their distinct workflows.
Documentation scope: Tasks, conversations, and attention
Recipes cover the main task/conversation/attention workflows. Full shell, permission, attachment, long-thread, and concurrency permutations remain to be enumerated.