mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-23 17:33:51 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
ed3f067dbd
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their operating budgets. > - Product E2E runs exercise real agents through a bounded gateway. > - The daily and weekly selections share one repository configuration variable. > - Their different request limits need different operating allowances. > - The existing parser accepts only one allowance, which cannot represent both reviewed limits. > - This change selects the allowance for the actual cadence and retains all existing validation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17009. **What happened?** The daily selection needs an $11 operating reservation; the weekly selection needs $21. A shared $21 allowance cannot fit the $20 daily cap. A shared $11 allowance does not cover the reviewed weekly resource bound. A configuration containing both allowances was rejected before paid admission. **Expected behavior** Each cadence uses its own reviewed allowance. Missing or malformed selected allowances stop admission before paid work. **Steps to reproduce** Set the operating allowance JSON to an object with daily and weekly allowances. Prepare either campaign through prepareScheduledCampaign. Before this change, both calls reject the outer object. **Paperclip version or commit**3bd709df8b. ## What Changed - Accept daily and weekly allowance entries in the existing configuration variable. - Select the actual cadence before validating its budget, runner and expiration. - Pass only the selected allowance through the existing workflow output. - Preserve single-allowance compatibility and document the configuration format. ## Verification - Reproduced both cadence failures before the fix: 2 failed, 12 passed. - Focused scheduled operations and operating overhead tests: 20 passed. - Eval TypeScript check passed. - Missing selected entries and unknown outer fields fail before creating a manifest. - Hosted CI passed at1c62cc8aeb, including full typecheck, tests, build and browser shards. - Greptile and Paperclip reviews both rated the exact commit 5/5 with no actionable findings. ## Risks - A map with a missing selected cadence now fails admission. It never substitutes the other cadence. - Operators must still provide reviewed rates and resource bounds. This parser does not prove actual charges. - This PR does not change limits, credentials, workflow permissions or enable gates. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution and test tools. The exact backend model identifier and context-window size 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 - [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>