Devin FoleyandPaperclip
837add0caa
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip keeps agent tasks moving through owned execution and durable waiting paths. > - A consumed review path gets one repair wake before board escalation. > - That wake records an instruction to save a new monitor or another real review path. > - The canonical wake builder omitted that instruction from the agent prompt. > - This pull request delivers it through the existing disposition-repair section. > - The repair limit and execution authority stay unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An agent opened a pull request and promised to watch CI and external review. It ended without scheduling a monitor. Its bounded review repair also ended without a maintained path, so the task became blocked for a board decision. The saved repair context contained the instruction, but the canonical wake payload and rendered prompt did not. **Expected behavior** The repair prompt tells the agent to save a one-shot monitor before promising another check. Both fresh and resumed sessions receive that instruction and the one-attempt limit. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a review-path recovery with `decideIssueReviewPathRecovery` for a task whose review path was consumed. 2. Pass its recorded context through `buildPaperclipWakePayload` and wake serialization. 3. Render a fresh or resumed prompt. Before this fix, it has the wake reason but no repair instruction. **Paperclip version or commit** Base: `9c442cf48e6`. Current head: `f38d65891c8d9f2b38eb76a8578e870debc2b1e6`. **Deployment mode** Observed on managed sandbox execution with the legacy Claude ACP adapter. The corrected canonical payload serves the shared adapter prompt path. Refs #15764 introduced the bounded exhausted-repair disposition. This change preserves that limit. Open monitor-retry work such as #17171 addresses an already scheduled check; this defect occurs before a check exists. Searches found no duplicate for this missing prompt field. ## What Changed - Build the review-path repair disposition in its owning recovery module, using the server instruction and fixed one-attempt bound. - Project it into the existing canonical `dispositionRepair` field. No new adapter field or execution protocol is added. - Ignore arbitrary replacement instructions and attempt-limit values. A pending repair keeps its instruction across a connection-pool retry that changes the wake reason. Ordinary wakes without the typed repair marker ignore raw instruction text. Existing legacy disposition repairs retain their values. - Add a regression across the real recovery decision, wake builder, serializer and fresh/resumed prompt selectors. Update execution guidance and the affected recovery maps. ## Verification - Verified red before the source fix: two regression cases failed because the instruction was absent; the sibling repair case passed. The same cases pass after the fix. - Passed 194 focused and safety tests across wake preparation, review recovery, adapter prompt handling, and database-backed liveness escalation. The connection-pool retry case also failed before its correction and passes after it. - Replayed the recorded incident wake through the fixed boundary. The old canonical prompt lacked its saved instruction. The corrected serialized prompt includes it with a 1/1 bound. This replay did not execute a provider turn or change the source task. Private evidence stays outside the repository. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` after the pool-retry correction. Passed `pnpm build` on final head `f38d65891c8d9f2b38eb76a8578e870debc2b1e6`. Map checks and `git diff --check` pass. - [Full CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40005890857) passed on that head: 54 checks passed and two optional checks were skipped. This includes the full test shards, typecheck, build, and browser suites. The local `pnpm test:run` attempt was stopped after the CI test shards passed. No complete local full-suite pass is claimed. - [Apex review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17353#issuecomment-6372160694) is 5/5 on the final head, with no open findings. The first review found the pool-retry case. Its regression and correction are included. The branch has no merge conflicts. - Test setup first required the plugin SDK build, then an empty credential-history database boundary. Those setup errors are not the claimed red. The temporary recorded-wake probe was removed before final validation. - Hosted follow-up acceptance is not run. The source task remains blocked and needs a retry after rollout. This PR does not claim that prompt delivery itself schedules a monitor or that every model will follow the instruction. ## Risks - This fixes instruction delivery. The agent must still save a valid monitor or another waiting path. The existing bounded escalation remains if it does not. - The wake stays a normal-model repair. It does not become status-only recovery and can continue useful work. Existing ownership, approval, budget, pause, and monitor admission gates remain in place. - No schema, credential, telemetry, API, model, or retry-budget change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, assisted with diagnosis, code editing, shell execution and verification. The exact serving model ID and context-window limit are 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 (194 focused and safety cases; full coverage passed in CI) - [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 agent access map
This map accompanies the feature map. It records APIs, agent entry points, permission boundaries and verification for the same capability IDs. The shared contract defines the format and maintenance rules.
Use full capability IDs when referring to access contracts outside their file:
onboarding/company means the company capability in onboarding.md in both maps.
The feature index lists feature and
capability IDs; IDs and references
explains entry-point references and stable naming.
Browse access contracts
The same-named feature recipes define navigation and capability IDs. Run
node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs for the generated
maps/generated/agent-access-map.md index, or browse the
published feature guide.
Add or update the affected companion; there is no central registration or count.
Existing baseline source references describe the original inspection, not current verification. Record new executed evidence in the PR, issue, or CI artifact with its revision and scope. Do not refresh unrelated headers as bookkeeping.
Using an entry
Read its Policy and Gaps before selecting an agent path. Native fallback, legacy
REST/CLI, stdio MCP and a personal assistant connection can have different
authority and availability. Use a real admitted production binding; a scenario
declaration is not an installed tool. A restricted entry records current
enforcement and leaves any unresolved delegation decision visible.
For API catalog disagreements, follow the route/service authorization and record
discovery drift. For not-applicable, retain the concrete exception and local
path. Split shared business operations from client-only presentation.
Use maintain-verification-skill to reconcile changed source and both maps.
Use verify-paperclip and existing API/runner/MCP fixtures to collect the
permitted-agent and denial evidence; report blocked/not-run coverage honestly.
Run node scripts/check-maps.mjs after editing. The structural check does not
certify permissions, API catalog coverage, tool admission or live behavior.
Native REST transport
The call_api parity change reconciles affected baselines against
58e16dbddfc9c8d0cf60867f9d9847f0feda055b and the changes in this PR. Ordinary
REST operations use the same route authorization as legacy agent REST. Dedicated
tools remain optional for those operations; protocol endpoints still need their
existing clients. Board-only routes remain restricted for agent identity.
Native search_api / call_api requires operator rollout admission, a running
authorized native run, current task assignment and execution-run binding, company
and budget authority, task privacy, and a permitted work mode. Ask and Plan retain
mutation restrictions, and runs retain their admitted JWT scope during restart
recovery even when task mode changes. A waiting
agent does not gain independent native control just because a REST route exists.
Credential-bearing replies, including company exports and their legacy alias, stay inline under a 10 MiB limit and use encrypted mutation receipts. Other saved API snapshots are limited to the issuing actor and responsible user, plus authorized administrators. Artifact uploads enforce the same access checks as downloads; private snapshots are excluded from company exports and public company logos. Explicit deliverables use the existing sharing path. Native event history, checkpoints and completion records omit API bodies while preserving receipt metadata and replay digests. Restored webhook secrets use the same encrypted receipt and inline response policy as newly created webhook secrets. Task image access requires the company boundary and the task permission; skill-test and low-trust agents do not need company-wide browsing authority. Completion replay applies the same idempotent projection to stored and expected payloads; the run-log guide describes its fields.
Sources: API client,
catalog,
native authority,
credential storage classification,
snapshot access,
and history redaction. The affected entries remain
baseline and source-only; this reconciliation does not certify every operation.
Targeted real-route proof lives in the
API integration suite,
including owned routines, skill tests, scoped secrets, proposals and private export replay.