mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 15:55:46 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
ba905c7254
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The chat catalog eval `teams.configure-team` checks that chat gets an installed team ready member by member > - Its setup installs Product Engineering, removes the QA member's account, and requires a real probe split: QA missing an account, the senior coder ready > - The QA probe returned a generic `opencode_hello_probe_failed` error, so the setup stopped with "probes do not establish the required missing-versus-ready account split" > - The cause is a product classification gap: OpenRouter answers an empty key with HTTP 401 "Missing Authentication header", which the OpenCode probe did not treat as authentication (fixed in #20878, cherry-picked here) > - This pull request makes the setup blocker name each member's observed readiness, and replaces reply keyword checks with structural checks > - The benefit is that the eval can reach the chat journey and grades it without matching words ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20878 **What happened** `teams.configure-team` failed in setup. The QA member's probe was `fail` with `opencode_hello_probe_failed`. The senior coder passed. The setup error did not say which member was in which state. **Expected behavior** The QA member's probe reports the missing-authentication check, so the split forms and the chat journey runs. When the split does not form, the setup error names each member's observed status and checks. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run `chat-features.runner-opencode.local.teams.configure-team` on master. 2. Read `snapshots/chat-catalog-team-initial-probes.json`. 3. QA shows `fail` with `opencode_hello_probe_failed:error`; the setup stops. ## What Changed - Cherry-pick of #20878: the OpenCode probe classifies a provider 401 as `opencode_hello_probe_auth_required`. - The setup blocker now lists each member as `name (expected missing account | expected ready | other member): status [non-info checks]`. - Grader: remove the member-name substring check and the "team is ready" regex. Identification is the rendered link to the missing member's own page, which the case already required. The followup is graded by a non-empty reply from its own succeeded run, not by the words "ready/configured/verified/account". Fresh per-member probes, preserved working configuration and revisions, and the attributed repair stay unchanged. - Calibration: reworded and non-English valid followups pass; missing handoff, empty followup, and failed followup run fail. A setup test with the recorded failure shape checks the new error text. - `oracleVersion` bumped to `paperclip.chat-catalog.team-configure.v3`; `parse.ts` added to `sourceFiles`. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts tests/runner-e2e/chat-catalog-domains/external-team-configure.test.ts tests/runner-e2e/chat-catalog-domains/external-team-configure-prerequisite.test.ts tests/runner-e2e/chat-runtime-profile.test.ts tests/runner-e2e/chat-catalog-contract.test.ts tests/runner-e2e/chat-catalog-consistency.test.ts` passes. - `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check` reports no change. - `node --test tests/runner-e2e/chat-full-catalog-testops-manifest.test.mjs` passes. - The paid run `chat-features.runner-opencode.local.teams.configure-team` is still to run. ## Risks - The removed "team is ready" regex failed open. A false whole-team claim in the reply now needs human reading of the transcript. The structural checks still reject a missing handoff, a missing repair, and any member that fails its fresh probe. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), tool use and code execution in Claude Code. ## 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 - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>