DottaandPaperclip
d84061b923
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Native runs preserve provider sessions across controller restarts. > - A completion event can reach durable storage before the next session checkpoint. > - Recovery advanced the event cursor but lost the saved completion proposal. > - The completed turn then appeared to need another provider turn to report its result. > - This change restores the exact active turn's proposal before advancing the cursor. > - Recovery can finalize completed work without repeating its external actions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** After a controller restart, a native run could fail with `native_finalization_missing` even though `run.result.proposed` was already durable. The recovered driver skipped that event when its cursor advanced, so the result was absent from its state. Automatic disposition retries could then encounter outstanding tool receipts and exhaust recovery. **Expected behavior** Restore the saved result for the exact active turn. Wait for provider termination, then use normal finalization. Do not start another provider turn to repeat completed work. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a native Codex task and save its active-turn checkpoint. 2. Persist its completion proposal, then lose the controller before another checkpoint. 3. Recover the same run after the provider completes. Before this change, finalization reports a missing result. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `92b238137b`. The repair is based on `7c247243e5`. **Deployment mode** Native Runner with Codex. The incident used a remote sandbox; the regression covers controller event recovery. Related: #12845 and #15297. The older #12241 addresses provider process continuity; this change repairs the controller's saved event projection. ## What Changed - Restore valid completion proposals for the checkpoint's exact active turn during event replay. - Reject conflicting, invalid, or incorrectly bound proposals. Ignore proposals from another turn and prevent adoption after a newer turn starts. - Keep provider termination and normal finalization as separate requirements. - Add eight behavioral cases using the real Codex driver and a simulated transport, and document the recovery contract and verification scope. ## Verification - Red: the new restart regression failed with `native_finalization_missing` before the production change. - Green: 254 tests passed across the native runtime, backend adapter, and Codex recovery suites. The new cases check no repeated provider work, no early finalization, duplicate proposals, conflicts, invalid proposals, and stale turn/session bindings. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. All CI gates passed on `2ac025a15c`; Greptile rated that commit 5/5 with no outstanding findings. The full local `pnpm test:run` was started after completing the embedded PostgreSQL installation, then stopped while still running once the complete CI test matrix passed; it is not reported as a completed local run. - Real local acceptance passed on `2ac025a15c` with the production Rust Runner transport, Codex CLI `0.160.0`, and `gpt-6.1-sol` on macOS arm64. Persisted the completion proposal while retaining the older active-turn checkpoint; let the provider finish without persisting its later controller events; stopped the exact owned runner/provider; recovered the same provider session and turn. Observed one accepted result, one durable `turn.start` command, and one line in the receipt file. Hosted sandbox restart and recovery of the original stopped task have not been performed. - Initial setup failures are retained: dependency drift caused diff-viewer type errors, and skipped PostgreSQL postinstall links prevented database startup. Dependency alignment and the package postinstall repaired those local prerequisites. Probe setup iterations failed on a direct-provider response schema, invalid probe input fields, and an original provider that still held its writer lock. Acceptance uses the production transport, validated input, and exact-owner shutdown. No production code changes were made for those probe setup failures. ## Risks - A stale proposal could finalize the wrong work. Recovery requires the checkpoint's active turn and matching run, session, and source. It rejects conflicting results and waits for provider termination. - The change uses the existing paginated recovery scan. It adds no database query per event or new retry allowance. - No schema migration or change to task authorization is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running as Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact served model snapshot and context-window size are not exposed in this session. The live acceptance probe uses `gpt-6.1-sol`. ## 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>
Paperclip feature map
Start here when reproducing a user-facing bug, verifying a change, or deciding which surfaces a fix must cover. Each recipe describes what a person can do, where they can do it, the expected result, and the evidence needed to verify it. Product behavior is still governed by the implementation spec.
The sibling agent access map records APIs, agent entry points and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. Follow the shared map contract when maintaining either map.
Browse features
Open the published Storybook guide for the assembled feature and capability index. The Markdown recipes in this directory are the authored source. Each has a same-named agent-access companion.
Run node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs to generate local navigation in
maps/generated/feature-map.md, maps/generated/agent-access-map.md, and the
Storybook guide. A new recipe is discovered automatically; do not register it in
this README or maintain counts here.
Before driving a journey
- Use this checkout's isolated test drive for manual product checks. It creates a temporary instance and prints its URL and data directory. Do not guess that a server on port 3100 belongs to you.
- Record the commit, URL, company, login role, relevant experimental settings, adapter, runtime mode, and live versus simulated dependencies. Use disposable tasks and provider resources. A fresh test drive creates a company and CEO, but no task or first run.
- Use the current navigation and company prefix. Paths in recipes omit that prefix. Record whether the streamlined or production shell is selected; Agent Chat, chat connectors, and the combined Inbox/Tasks view have separate gates. A hidden surface is an unmet prerequisite, not a successful test.
- Run the smallest relevant test first. Vitest commands below run from the repository root after installing dependencies. Playwright recipes use their named configuration and its isolated environment, not an unrelated running instance. Reserve expensive runner/provider tests for the behavior at issue.
- Exercise the actual user action, inspect its result, reload, and verify the persisted state or continuation. Use read-only API checks to corroborate UI evidence; creating state through the API does not prove the creation UI.
For agent-driven acceptance work, start with the Paperclip verification skill for an isolated launch, ownership/readiness checks, browser driving, evidence, and cleanup. It uses this directory as its feature map. The existing dev-workspace run/verify skill and evaluation skill describe runtime ownership and evidence handling. Reuse them; this map introduces no environment launcher, credentials, scheduled job, or second test framework.
Evidence contract
Report each entry point as passed, failed, blocked (with its missing prerequisite), or not run. Include the feature filename and entry-point ID, commit/environment, user action, expected and observed result, command/exit code, and evidence links. Screenshots or traces should show both the action and the discriminating result. Include task/run/request IDs when relevant, without secrets.
A fix is verified across its affected surfaces only when each has evidence or an explicit reason it does not apply. Shared code alone does not prove parity. Keep product regressions visible; do not change the recipe to bless a failure. For Paperclip-assigned work, attach evidence through the artifact workflow.
Inventory and remaining depth
The generated maps/generated/coverage.json lists the current non-test TSX page
modules and the recipes that directly reference each one. An unreferenced module
is a documentation candidate, not proof that its feature is absent or untested.
Remaining workflow limits live in each recipe. Inventory and example associations
describe documentation scope, not runtime health.
Maintaining the reference
The map documents user journeys. It does not execute them automatically; generated inventories record documentation scope rather than live test health.
When maintaining a recipe, compare its entry points and expected results with
the current source. Check that linked tests still exercise the stated behavior
and that local references still exist. Keep the same-named agent access companion
and stable sub-feature IDs aligned when behavior or access changes. Source-only
access inventory remains distinct from live verification. Run
node scripts/check-maps.mjs after map edits for structural/reference checks;
follow the shared contract for the source and behavioral checks it cannot perform.
Each recipe starts with a small frontmatter navigation record, then an H1:
---
navigation: {"section":"Tasks and conversations","sectionOrder":20,"order":10}
---
The H1 supplies the feature title, and the first paragraph supplies its summary. Orders are local to the section; leave gaps for additions. Equal orders use the stable filename as a tie-breaker. Keep a section's name/order consistent across its recipes. A new feature or capability needs only its recipe and companion.
Optional ### Storybook verification guidance lives inside the recipe's Gotchas
section. Each level-four heading contains a backtick-quoted capability key and
has Scope (ui, cli, or browser),
Storybook, Production, and Sources fields. These are verification instructions
and intentional scope limits, not run results or a required story for every API.
The generated gap report combines this guidance with current story associations.
After frontmatter, each recipe starts with an H1 and a user-visible description, then exactly:
- Sub-features — stable backticked IDs and observable behavior/states.
- How to get to it (user POV) — one H3 backticked entry-point ID per surface.
- Driving it with — starts with
Preconditions:; repeat each entry-point H3, withAutomated:andManual:paragraphs. Name test scope and gaps honestly. - Gotchas — misleading look-alikes, feature gates, and invalid evidence.
New or updated entries follow
Poteto's feature-map examples.
Existing entries with a Driving it heading can adopt the named harness when
their recipes are updated. The original format was inspired by
Omnigent's feature map.
Paperclip's recipes and checks follow its own task model and test infrastructure.