mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 15:55:46 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
ce1ee9e89f
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents read runtime prompts, tool help, skills, and role instructions. > - Several of these texts tell agents to create child tasks as a normal next step. > - One accepted-plan prompt even forbids work on the current task. > - Task parentage is useful, but it does not need a prompt that encourages task creation. > - This pull request removes those prompts and keeps the task APIs available. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10642. This change adjusts prompt wording; it does not add delegation-cycle guards. **Current behavior** Prompts tell agents to create children after plan approval, use children for long work, and create a task just to pass context. Onboarding requires a child even for a single request. **Proposed behavior** Continue work on the current task. Keep explicit assignments, optional task creation, parentage, dependencies, and approval gates. Use the separate-task recipes when the user requests that structure or when continuing existing work. **Reason and benefit** Reduce needless task trees without removing subtask support. Keep the patch limited to wording, existing test expectations, and generated catalog data. ## What Changed - Align accepted-plan prompts and remove direct child-creation advice from runtime and error text. - Make task tool descriptions neutral. Keep their fields, defaults, and handlers. - Update the main skill, onboarding, CEO instructions, company templates, specialist workflows, and matching guides. - Keep historical release snapshots intact. Refresh the explicitly seeded schema fixture's catalog digest; the server still verifies historical release snapshot hashes. - Refresh the affected generated catalogs, capability inventory, semantic contracts, and fixture manifest. ## Verification - Final tested head: `c6e304d0c105cdbfbe0b2ab0a233307fcd91a04b`. - All 66 check runs are complete: 60 pass, one is neutral, and five are skipped by CI conditions. Snyk also passes. No checks fail or remain pending. - [PR CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42846226554) passes typecheck, build, server/general tests, all eight E2E shards, Runner support, Runner Rust, and the aggregate verify gate. [Windows](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42846226546) and [Docker Runner](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42846226108) also pass. - [Greptile](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20362#issuecomment-6751419835) and [Paperclip review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/20362#issuecomment-6751454010) give this exact head 5/5. All six inline threads are resolved. Neither current summary has findings. - Merged master `bf0220d34a156c81853755c3d1365ddc527037de`. Resolved three generated-file conflicts with the canonical generators. - Local verification passes: 473 focused prompt, continuation, UI, catalog, runtime and native-execution tests; Runner TypeScript build; generated metadata; UI token gates; and diff checks. - The prior head `c22018cb0f` failed three SDK evidence tests because two source hashes were stale. Reproduced all three failures locally. The existing generator refreshed only the hashes for the denial-copy file and its test. All 53 affected evidence/source-pin tests then passed, including private-value rejection. No scanner logic, assertions, or runtime dependency pins changed. Current CI confirms the support suite passes. - A prior commit failed the Rust process reaping test. Its cause remains unproven. No Rust code or assertions changed. Later Rust runs pass; this does not establish the cause of the earlier failure. - Local preflight built shared/plugin SDK packages, then stopped because `cargo` is absent. Current-head CI supplies Rust and full build coverage. `pnpm verify --explain` selects broad required CI; full local suites were not repeated. ## Risks - Wording changes guide the model; they do not enforce a ban on subtasks. - Existing installed skill versions and saved custom instructions need their normal refresh process. This PR does not migrate company configuration. - Existing approved task assignments and approval gates remain in effect. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6, through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact routed model ID and context-window size were 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 - [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>
39 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
39 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
title: Org Structure
|
||
summary: Reporting hierarchy and chain of command
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
Paperclip enforces a strict organizational hierarchy. Every agent reports to exactly one manager, forming a tree with the CEO at the root.
|
||
|
||
## How It Works
|
||
|
||
- The **CEO** has no manager (reports to the board/human operator)
|
||
- Every other agent has a `reportsTo` field pointing to their manager
|
||
- You can change an agent’s manager after creation from **Agent → Configuration → Reports to** (or via `PATCH /api/agents/{id}` with `reportsTo`)
|
||
- Managers can assign work to their reports
|
||
- Agents escalate blockers up the chain of command
|
||
|
||
## Viewing the Org Chart
|
||
|
||
The org chart is available in the web UI under the Agents section. It shows the full reporting tree with agent status indicators.
|
||
|
||
Via the API:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
GET /api/companies/{companyId}/org
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
## Chain of Command
|
||
|
||
Every agent has access to their `chainOfCommand` — the list of managers from their direct report up to the CEO. This is used for:
|
||
|
||
- **Escalation** — when an agent is blocked, they can reassign to their manager
|
||
- **Delegation** — managers can assign work to their reports
|
||
- **Visibility** — managers can see what their reports are working on
|
||
|
||
## Rules
|
||
|
||
- **No cycles** — the org tree is strictly acyclic
|
||
- **Single parent** — each agent has exactly one manager
|
||
- **Cross-team work** — agents can receive tasks from outside their reporting line, but cannot cancel them (must reassign to their manager)
|