mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-31 22:24:16 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
9e09d8f51f
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - First-task onboarding requires a saved human proposal decision before child work can start. > - Native proposal tools reject interaction metadata placed outside their advertised schema. > - The existing rejection text focuses on question forms and does not explain the misplaced approval metadata. > - This pull request explains the field placement and keeps approval recovery in its original confirmation or checkbox kind. > - It also retains safe schema guidance in the run log so operators can identify the rejected field. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #18025 for native first-task proposal recipes and #16889 for safe native schema guidance. Related open PR #18105 changes separate server API-client guidance. **What happened?** A native first-task confirmation copied `version` and `supersedeOnUserComment` to the tool root. Both belong inside `payload`. The runner correctly rejected the call before execution, but its feedback described question forms. Later calls kept the misplaced field and changed the approval into a question. No proposal card was created. The run log retained only a generic schema error. **Expected behavior** Keep strict validation. Explain the nested field locations. Keep a confirmation or checkbox approval in that kind while correcting its arguments. Save the normal pending card and wait for an actual human decision. Retain bounded schema guidance without storing rejected input. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Send an otherwise valid native confirmation with root-level `version: 1` and `supersedeOnUserComment: false`. 2. Observe the pre-dispatch `invalid_tool_call` rejection. 3. Move both fields into `payload` and keep `interactionKind: "confirmation"`. 4. Verify that the corrected call creates one pending confirmation, exact replay creates no duplicate, and child creation still needs saved human acceptance. **Paperclip version or commit** The observed argument shape and initial regressions came from public source base `c32e1ba6`. The repair is based on maintained master `4a6f6a65`. Public tests use synthetic prompts and identifiers. ## What Changed - Give rejected confirmations and checkboxes approval-specific guidance. It names `payload.version` and `payload.supersedeOnUserComment` without suggesting a question-form recipe. Other human-input errors retain complete question-form guidance and stable question/option ID instructions. - State the allowed native root fields in the first-task skill and put the metadata inside both executable proposal recipes. - Retain the existing safe guidance in `semantic_tool_denied` diagnostics. Keep the original rejection identity and `paperclipExecuted: false`. - Preserve only the exact bounded scalar diagnostic payload after verified event admission. The rest of the envelope and all API request/result bodies keep their existing redaction. - Add a real native Codex transport regression and strengthen advertised-schema, card replay, human-admission, persistence, and privacy controls. Update the execution contract and onboarding maps. ## Verification - Red: the native transport reproduced the malformed confirmation and showed that the old hint omitted the metadata correction. A second red confirmed that approval guidance still included the question-form recipe. The corrected transport case now rejects before execution, retains a safe hint, and dispatches one corrected confirmation that returns a pending card. - Red: both shipped recipe checks lacked explicit nested metadata. All 49 first-task admission tests now pass, including advertised-schema validation, idempotent card replay, actual human acceptance, agent-only rejection, and question-answer controls. - Updated native checks pass on the current repair: 95 native Codex transport tests with 2 existing ignored cases, all 32 provider-bridge tests, and the schema-feedback unit control. - API/case persistence regressions were red before the event-boundary correction. All 71 affected port/redaction tests pass in a clean run at frozen head `3be3a70f`, including the corrected envelope privacy regression. The focused 16-test persistence/privacy group and server typecheck also passed earlier. - Full local `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck` pass at exact head `3be3a70f` in a clean detached checkout with Node 24.22.0 and pnpm 9.15.4. Exact-head CI passes: [full PR CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40950360142) and [isolated native Runner readiness](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40950359835). - The full local unit attempt recorded a 15-second timeout in the unrelated Microsoft Teams 100,000-character existing-comment publication case. That failure remains recorded. The exact isolated rerun passed (1 test; 1,814 unselected). The aggregate timeout cause is unproven. That long local run straddled subsequent source edits and also observed the two port regressions during their red phase; it was stopped and is not final-head evidence. The clean affected-suite run above and current-head CI provide the final verification. No timeout or assertion was weakened. - Release-registry CI initially rejected the native test's compile-time schema include outside the release crate's hashed input closure. The guard was reproduced locally. The test now reads the current canonical schema at execution. All 10 crate-cache controls and the real native approval regression pass afterward; the cache guard and workflow keys remain unchanged. - Current-head Greptile review is 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. All required checks pass (56 success, 4 skipped). The advisory Paperclip Review remains neutral/incomplete after one normal re-review request; no completed assessment or score is claimed. - `cargo fmt --check`, map structural checks, and `git diff --check` pass. - Source and scripted-provider checks do not prove that a model will follow the guidance. The original live onboarding attempt remains failed; acceptance at a deployed revision is separate work. ## Risks - This changes repair guidance and shipped instructions. It does not make malformed arguments valid or supply a human decision. - Diagnostic retention adds no rejected arguments, values, or unknown input keys. The API receipt allowlist is unchanged. The validated-event exception restores only the safe scalar payload; optional debug and other envelope metadata still pass through redaction. - The existing 512-byte guidance bound, strict tool schema, company/run binding, idempotency checks, and proposal admission remain effective. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`) through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The context-window size is not exposed to 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>