mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-04 11:01:16 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
ef5b98594f
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets a person manage a company of AI agents. > - A primary agent is that person's company preference. > - Only the person's board session can change it. > - Native API discovery explains that restriction but omits the real human control. > - An agent can then suggest a Chat-picker setting that does not exist. > - This change describes the existing profile crown and replacement confirmation. > - It adds no agent authority and no new tool. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** API discovery for the personal primary-agent preference explains board-only access. It does not explain the supported profile control. A retained native response gave a correct board API alternative but also suggested a primary setting in the Chat picker. The picker only opens conversations. **Expected behavior** The discovered operation should direct the person to the chosen agent's profile, the crown control labeled Set as my primary, and the replacement confirmation. It must keep the current person's board authority and the agent denial. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Search the native API for set primary agent. 2. Read the primary-agent operation's description. 3. Compare its guidance with the profile crown and the Chat picker. 4. The current description has no supported UI path. **Paperclip version or commit** Master `7b8aa60b6d` and the retained evaluated application have this metadata gap. The profile control was checked in both sources. A scoped open-PR search found no matching primary-discovery fix. ## What Changed - Add general profile/crown/confirmation guidance to the existing GET and PUT operation description. - Clarify that the Chat picker does not change the preference. - Keep all other OpenAPI bytes, authority, schemas and handlers unchanged. - Update the two existing capability maps. ## Verification - The actual API search result passes through the existing authenticated OpenCode MCP bridge and its bounded JSON serializer. The parent fails because the delivered description has no profile control. The new result retains the full guidance, board-only actor and original schema. - The existing API client keeps its agent bearer/run identity and propagates a mocked board403. This is client propagation proof, not a new real-route claim. - Initial selected controls:997PASS,1061 intentionally unselected. After relocating the same test into the existing server `__tests__` directory, both complete owning files pass:2058 controls. These are static/protocol controls, not native journeys. - The first normal CI head failed with TS6059 because the test imported Runner source outside the server build root. The successor moves only that test to the already-excluded test directory and adjusts four relative imports. An independent source peer confirms identical test bodies; `--listFilesOnly` confirms build-program exclusion. The failed head is retained. Corrected-head CI41599277833 passed48 jobs/1skip on attempt2 at08:17:23UTC. Attempt1 had46passing jobs but a server4 runner-shutdown cancellation; exactly that job and dependent verify were rerun once on the unchanged head. - Maps and diff checks pass. The initial loopback listen EPERM was a setup failure; the controlled transport test then reached the actual assertion RED. - No Paperclip app, database, browser, model, external provider or real credential ran locally. Full typecheck/build passed in corrected-head normal PR CI. Fresh Greptile5/5 is tied to that exact head, with zero unresolved threads. ## Risks The added description can affect API search ranking. It changes guidance only. It does not impersonate a person, change permissions or automatically select an agent. Future model behavior remains unqualified. The prior mixed failed journey is retained; its separate versioned grading work is not part of this PR. Keep this core PR unmerged. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` with reasoning, source inspection and tool use. Context-window size was not exposed by the host. ## 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>