mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-09 16:35:27 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
b5342febe5
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents, tasks, permissions, and execution budgets. > - Native tasks can resume after a connection decision in the same provider conversation. > - Each turn still needs an accepted completion report. > - Compact continuation messages did not explain that reports from earlier turns cannot finish the new turn. > - The connection evaluator could also grade before the final reply was stored or reject valid unavailable-access wording. > - This PR clarifies the current-turn report requirement and fixes those observation boundaries. > - The original connection instructions and strict native completion gate stay in place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15489. The reduction remains draft while this separate repair is qualified. Refs #15471 for the earlier connection continuation work. ## What Changed - Add a current-turn completion reminder to compact continuation inputs. - Keep final prose insufficient for completion. Preserve permissions and retry policy. - Wait for the final successful task run's saved, attributed decline reply within the existing deadline. - Use one bounded explanation matcher for both decline checks. - Wait for a recorded tool-action rejection to dispatch its bound continuation, with strict company, task, agent and source-run checks. - Retain the exact grading input before later API refreshes. - Add failure and delay regressions and update the Runner and evaluator docs. ## Verification The fresh comparison has **15/15 original passes on each variant**: 15 unchanged pass pairs, zero new failures, and no pending pair. There are 30 case attempts and **65 actual agent runs** (baseline 33; candidate 32). All runs succeeded. All 30 cleanups passed. No model attempt was retried. | Profile | Baseline | Candidate | | --- | --- | --- | | Native Codex `gpt-5.6-sol` | 5/5 | 5/5 | | ACPX Claude `claude-sonnet-5` | 5/5 | 5/5 | | OpenCode `openrouter/deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731` | 5/5 | 5/5 | Each profile covers service approval, service decline, connection decline, provider decline, and selection of the second provider. The saved replies, approved briefings, decisions, fixture observations, final task states, and native completion records were inspected. All 18 saved decline-grade snapshots match their original captured inputs and checks. Result, API snapshot, and final ledger run sets agree. - [Candidate campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37711658378) · [public candidate report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-37711658378-1/index.html) - [Baseline campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37711675579) · [public baseline report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-37711675579-1/index.html) - Candidate source: `79905343bba280d462765faad19a26e7f179259e`. Baseline source: `7c5e120158f1385a1fc5f20be41f66c58a605534`. Both use master context `fc6304dfe5f2e446e09bd052a7b45f51e930f250`. The trusted workflow source is separately frozen at `dd777f4b7343305c4e6f44c422f44a1d78e12e4f`. - Both variants use the same evaluator, fixtures, models, permissions, 720-second cell deadline, and 1,000-cent company and agent hard stops. The only production difference is the compact continuation reminder. - Suite hash: `aee30b74b4d38ada08777798db0932fbc64e368bb427d29caa8cfd86c7f59747`. Definition hash: `ea9e17f54fe0af1acbb2337ddfab8a7e92db8488bd0f59510a63095ca0229b60`. - Provider-free transport capture: startup/resume input stays at 55,726 bytes. Compact continuation input grows from 53,334 to 53,535 bytes. The 42-tool catalog stays unchanged. These are Paperclip input bytes, not complete vendor prompt tokens. - Focused evaluator tests: 31 pass. Native contract, transport delivery, and session tests: 194 pass. Evaluator support: 1,819 TypeScript tests and 128 Node tests pass, with one intentional skip. - Full build, workspace typecheck, and evaluator typecheck pass. Current-head CI passes all required gates. The current rollup has 51 successful check runs, two intentional Storybook skips, and a successful Snyk status. Review is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. - CI attempt 1 had one initial runtime-fixture health timeout. The exact test and its full 164-test file pass locally. One CI shard retry passed. The original CI failure, its dependent verify failure, and the retry remain visible in [CI history](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37711235060). - The broad local `pnpm test:run` attempt was interrupted after about 49 minutes (exit 130). It recorded one failure in the unchanged Zep memory-connector disabled-setting test. That test and the full 388-test tool-access file pass in separate local checks; current-head CI also passes. The local cause is not established, and this broad local attempt is **not** claimed as passing. Three earlier local failures also pass in their isolated checks; their original logs remain retained. - The first two setup admissions were cancelled before provider jobs to include the review correction. They made no provider calls. The completed campaigns above are the first and only model attempts for these corrected variants. Cost evidence stays separate from behavior. Original result summaries report only OpenCode amounts: baseline $0.039192096 and candidate $0.063221620. Final run ledgers also retain estimates for Claude (baseline $1.232439000; candidate $1.333611200) and Codex (baseline $2.340324400; candidate $2.129335600). These estimates do not replace the original summaries. Local and GitHub runtime are unmetered here. Invoices are unknown. This is not a cheaper or faster claim. ## Risks - A single matched trial cannot prove general equivalence or causation. The reminder is an instruction change, not a new completion enforcement rule. - Candidate OpenCode service-decline finished within one continuous run; its baseline used two. That pair passed the task outcome, but it does not qualify the reminder on a resumed decline turn. No extra paid run was used to replace it. - The text matcher is bounded evidence of an explanation. It does not prove reasoning or consumption of feedback. Bounded stdout excerpts do not prove that every extra attempted tool call is absent. - Missing saved replies or continuations still fail at the original deadline. Failed native completion remains a failure even when final prose is correct. - The unresolved local-suite discrepancy above remains a validation limit. Full remote CI and both focused local reproductions pass. - The original connection instructions stay in place. These results do not qualify the reduction in #15489. Its original 11/15 versus 12/15 grades and two new failing pairs remain unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The exact deployment ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Capabilities used: reasoning, repository editing, code execution, test inspection and eval analysis. ## 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 - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the focused local tests listed above and they pass; the interrupted broad local run is disclosed above - [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>