## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Native runs report their outcome through paperclip_finish.
> - The server previously turned incomplete reports into human approval
requests.
> - Those requests could block a later successful run, even when no
person had requested review.
> - This pull request creates review cards only for explicit attention
requests and withdraws proven old fallback cards.
> - Agents receive useful completion feedback, while explicit approval
gates and task state protections remain in force.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related: #13266 removed reviews caused by policy upgrades. This change
removes the separate completion fallback.
**What happened?**
An agent reported needs_review while waiting for checks without
requesting a human decision. Paperclip created a generic Native
completion review. A later successful report could not complete the task
because that old card remained pending.
**Expected behavior**
Ordinary low-risk work completes after a valid done report, a successful
run, and workspace finalization. Incomplete work stays with the agent.
Explicit approval requests remain visible and must be resolved.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Complete a native run with needs_review and no attention requests.
2. Continue the task and submit a successful done report.
3. Observe that the old implementation leaves the task in review behind
a generic confirmation card.
## What Changed
- Require explicit attention requests to create native review cards.
Route each request independently and preserve pending or declined
decisions.
- Withdraw only pending system cards with matching old decision,
assessment, effect, contract, and prompt provenance. Preserve history
and explicit or answered requests.
- Reassess an affected current result without overwriting later task
edits, runs, contracts, or workspace failures.
- Return pending approval links and required actions through the
completion tool. Reject contradictory done reports and empty review
requests before accepting a result.
- Allow one corrective continuation for incomplete results, then expose
a recovery action.
- Update status fixtures, database regressions, runner tests, and the
completion contract documentation.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after merging current master.
- `pnpm build` passed after merging current master.
- The combined branch passed 89 completion and Agent Chat tests. Other
targeted tests passed: 170 external-chat and reconciliation tests; 50
runner-resume and control-plane tests; 13 arbiter tests; 7 chat delivery
tests; 21 runner completion and runtime-context tests.
- The full local test attempt exposed old review fixtures and a missing
fake-provider binary. The fixtures are fixed and the helper is built.
All affected suites pass in fresh reruns. The timing-sensitive Discord
test also passed on rerun.
- All latest-head CI checks passed, including build, typecheck, general
and serialized tests, runner verification, browser tests, and canary dry
run. Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved comments.
## Risks
- Cleanup changes existing pending cards. It requires exact system
provenance and only applies to low-risk agent-claim contracts. It does
not delete history or dismiss explicit requests.
- Status still commits after the turn and workspace finalization.
Completion feedback reports current constraints and does not claim an
early status commit.
- Incomplete reports now request a bounded corrective run instead of an
automatic approval. Repeated failures expose recovery.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and
test tools. The exact deployment 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>
c9021c6721