mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-07 06:16:06 -10:00
DottaandPaperclip
1d24bd8e47
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Failed or stalled tasks need a repair that restores useful work without weakening execution safety. > - The existing diagnosis skill stops at a plan and relies on private historical task links. > - A repair can pass a narrow test while still failing in the deployed runtime or permitting duplicate work. > - This PR adds a task repair workflow with failing-before/passing-after evidence, safety tests, real workflow verification, and PR checks. > - The old skill name remains usable and preserves explicit diagnosis-only or caller approval limits. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Outdated documentation. **Where is the issue?** `.agents/skills/diagnose-why-work-stopped/SKILL.md`. **What's wrong?** The skill requires a plan approval even when implementation is authorized. Its private task links do not provide usable guidance to other contributors. It does not carry a repair through regression proof, second-order checks, real workflow verification, and a green PR. **Suggested fix** Add `fix-failed-paperclip-run` and route the old name to it. Keep the failure patterns self-contained. Keep explicit diagnosis-only requests and the Terminal-Bench caller's approval boundary effective. Related: #7658 established the maintainer skill location. A search for the old and new skill names found no competing task-repair skill PR. ## What Changed - Added a workflow from incident evidence through a verified repair and current-head PR checks. - Added eight standalone failure patterns with behavioral test oracles and common verification traps. - Replaced the old plan-only workflow with a compatibility entry point. Preserved issue-tree classification and the three liveness invariants. - Distinguished PR readiness, deployment, and recovery of the original task. Reuse an existing sufficient fix instead of creating a duplicate patch. ## Verification - Rename commit `b979b632ee8f1ef57f1e7d6c37c711d1c83f5844`: both skill validators, local reference checks, and whitespace checks pass. CI and review are pending for this commit. - The standard skill validator passes for both skill entry points. - All Markdown references resolve. Referenced repository workflows exist. The new files contain no historical task IDs, private URLs, or machine-specific paths. - `git diff --check` passes. - Manually reviewed scenarios for an existing merged fix, unknown historical cause, unsafe duplicate execution, live-only failure, explicit diagnosis-only scope, and the Terminal-Bench approval boundary. This is instruction review, not a live agent evaluation. - Attempted `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build`. All stopped before execution because pnpm could not fetch and verify the pinned version in the sandbox. This worktree also has no installed repository dependencies. No runtime pass is claimed from these attempts. - No product code changed. At head `90ee31270420d2dac20dc3a41b12cddb5134d6ec`, 55 PR checks passed and 2 were skipped. Typecheck, tests, build, and the aggregate verification gate passed in CI. Greptile is 5/5 with no inline findings or unresolved review threads. ## Risks - The old skill now continues into implementation when a fix is authorized. Its explicit scope rule preserves diagnosis-only requests and approval requirements from callers. - This change is workflow guidance. Structural validation and scenario review do not prove how a future agent will execute it on a live incident. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6-astra`, with tool-assisted history inspection, repository review, and Markdown authoring. The context window size is 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 (skill validation; repository-wide commands could not start, as noted above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (no runtime behavior changed) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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 <[email protected]>