mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-03 17:51:58 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
cd12432947
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and keeps their results attached to tasks. > - Native tools return links to saved task documents. > - Completion feedback asks agents to include those links. > - The file-delivery validator treated every such relative link as a workspace path. > - A valid document and CSV result could therefore fail completion when it cited the supplied document link. > - This change derives document links from the same verified publication projection for guidance and validation. > - Requested files still need their own verified delivery evidence. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The native document tool and completion feedback produce a link such as `/EX/issues/EX-1#document-output`. When a task also requests a downloadable CSV, citing that link causes completion to reject it as a workspace-only file. This occurs even when the document is published and the file has a valid current-run delivery receipt. **Expected behavior** Accept a server-derived document link only when it names the current company/task and a currently attached revision with a matching native publication receipt. Keep the separate requested-file requirement and all foreign, stale, missing, and workspace-file guards. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Save a task document through the native `write_document` tool. 2. Publish a CSV through `register_deliverable`. 3. Ask completion feedback for the final-response guidance. 4. Cite its returned document link alongside the file receipt in the next completion report. 5. The old validator rejects the valid document link as a workspace-only file. **Paperclip version or commit** Current source checkout. The regression exercises the real native document producer and completion validator. **Deployment mode** Local source verification on macOS arm64 with Node 24.22.1, pinned pnpm 9.15.4, locked dependencies, temporary PostgreSQL, and a controlled remote file-reader boundary. No live provider or hosted deployment is included. ## What Changed - Derive the canonical document href in the existing company/task/current-revision publication query. - Use that same verified href in completion guidance and reference validation. - Keep file registration and hash/size receipt requirements separate from document evidence. - Cover evidence, artifact, and criterion references; foreign companies/tasks; bogus keys; local paths; and lost current-revision publication proof. - Exercise actual native document writes and CSV registration, including attachment download query and fragment links. - Update the execution contract and the document feature/access maps. ## Verification - Red before the production edit: native completion generated a real saved-document link, then rejected the same link alongside a valid published file. The failure was the workspace-only-file guard. - Green: 210 tests across native completion feedback, explicit output validation, and the existing native file-handoff suite pass. These use real PostgreSQL and native tool receipts; the remote file reader is controlled. - A saved document link alone still fails the explicit CSV requirement. A document whose current revision lacks its publication receipt is rejected. Foreign task/company links, missing keys, malformed links, and workspace paths remain rejected. - Full workspace typecheck, server typecheck, and production build pass. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs`, and `git diff --check` pass. Map checks establish structure only. - Full `pnpm test:run` is running separately. There is no full-suite verdict yet. CI and review are pending. - Hosted acceptance and any recovery of existing tasks remain separate steps. This PR does not change final-response recovery or scheduling. ## Risks - An overly broad URL exception could admit foreign or unpublished output. The validator accepts only exact hrefs from the authenticated publication projection. - Document evidence could hide a missing requested file. A separate regression keeps that delivery gate effective. - The shared projection adds current task/company joins. Existing document feedback and publication tests cover those consumers. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` through Codex, with reasoning, code editing, shell execution, and automated tests. The context-window size is 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 - [ ] 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>