mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-24 10:13:11 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
b6e690044a
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Product E2E campaigns include model, setup, storage and observability costs. > - Some billing windows close after the tests and reports finish. > - Requiring settled receipts for retained storage can block a good campaign for weeks. > - A reservation alone does not prove that a pending charge has an upper bound. > - This change permits provisional completion only with reviewed evidence for the exact cost configuration. > - Reports preserve unknown amounts and holds until later reconciliation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #17360, #17354 **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Product E2E scheduled accounting gate and its retained cost reports. **Current behavior** Every pending receipt fails finalization. A completed test can wait through the retained-storage billing window. The journal has dollar reservations but no explicit qualification of their bounds. **Proposed behavior** Permit provisional completion when all pending charges have reviewed full-lifecycle bounds, no requests remain in flight, no receipts conflict, and known costs plus held amounts fit the campaign limit. Keep all existing holds and receipt-finality rules. Missing evidence still fails. **Reason and benefit** An operator can distinguish delayed but bounded billing from unbounded or missing costs. The campaign can finish without claiming that its invoice is settled. **Breaking changes** The journal accepts optional bound metadata and an invalidation record. New reports add an optional bounded-pending count. Current readers retain old journals and reports without granting them bounds. Older code must not read new bound-bearing journals. The existing daily/weekly enable gates and budget amounts stay unchanged. **Additional context** This implements the operator-approved provisional-cost policy for the existing eval harness. It does not change product budgets or the agent-eval roadmap. A targeted GitHub search found no duplicate open PR. ## What Changed - Accounting owns a narrow evidence contract: a reviewed audit hash, exact configuration hash and full-lifecycle scope. - Gateway reservations retain that evidence before dispatch. Changed limits or rates fail before dispatch. Unexpected routing, model identity or excessive usage invalidates a bound durably. - Operating allowances can carry separately reviewed bounds for each cost component, including its full storage lifetime. No existing allowance becomes qualified by default. - Reports and Braintrust experiment metadata distinguish provisional accounting, complete receipts, blocked accounting and unavailable evidence. Public output omits private audit hashes. - Scheduled finalization allows qualified provisional costs and explicitly rejects spending overruns, including overruns with complete receipts. - Add regressions for legacy data, restarts, late reconciliation, conflicts, malformed evidence, routing uncertainty and exceeded limits. Document the evidence and migration boundaries. ## Verification - Full offline eval-support suite: 4,062 Vitest tests passed, two existing tests skipped; 137 Node tests passed. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck`: passed. - `git diff --check`: passed. - Read the retained hosted qualification journal with the new policy. All six legacy pending charges remain unqualified. Known cost `$0.421245200`, held `$19.327680000`, and committed `$19.748925200` remain unchanged. The journal's SHA-256 is unchanged. The original failed workflow remains failed. - No paid models, network provider calls, receipt imports or reservation releases were used for this verification. - Rebased onto master `4d90634f74`; 142 targeted tests and typecheck passed. - Review reproduced a lost OpenAI input-total limit check when cache details were missing (1 failed, 47 passed). Fix `5fef9ba7c149951a51eae468614a4b89f0b3d6db` preserves unpriced provider usage bounds. Then 178 focused tests, full offline support and typecheck passed. - Current-head hosted CI passed: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40020746585 (attempt 2). Typecheck, build, all general/Runner/serialized tests and browser gates are green. - CI attempt 1 hit a PostgreSQL deadlock in unchanged chat-test cleanup; its skipped flag restoration caused a second assertion failure. One failed-jobs-only retry passed. Original failure evidence is preserved in attempt 1. No paid eval campaign was rerun. - Greptile reviewed exact head `5fef9ba7c149951a51eae468614a4b89f0b3d6db` at 5/5; its one finding is fixed and resolved. The optional Paperclip review is paused and supplied no assessment. ## Risks - Evidence hashes bind an audit to a configuration; they do not prove the audit is true. Operators must review real provider limits, all price tiers, full resource lifetimes and enforceable infrastructure limits before configuring bounds. - Provisional completion is not invoice settlement. Later billing can reveal overruns, which must be reconciled and inspected. The ledger cannot stop external billing. - Existing pilot journals, configured allowances and price cards have no new bound approval. This PR alone does not qualify or enable recurring paid work. - The gateway cannot qualify a canceled Braintrust request without route confirmation. It preserves that unknown hold. - No new dependency, secret, repository variable, workflow, schedule or cloud resource changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools and code execution. No paid evaluation model calls were made for this change. ## 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>