127 lines
4.2 KiB
Markdown
127 lines
4.2 KiB
Markdown
# reply-end-controls - Telegram + OpenClaw PoC Success Report
|
|
|
|
- Date: 2026-05-13
|
|
- Scope: Telegram-only PoC in `openclawtest`
|
|
- Status: PoC successful
|
|
|
|
## Executive summary
|
|
|
|
The Telegram + OpenClaw PoC is successful.
|
|
|
|
The project has now proven the full core path from reply decoration to callback-triggered state persistence and visible behavior influence.
|
|
|
|
This does **not** mean the feature is production-complete. It means the main V1 proof-of-concept chain is real and working on a live Telegram bot.
|
|
|
|
## What was proven
|
|
|
|
### 1. Assistant replies can show reply-end buttons
|
|
|
|
Telegram assistant replies successfully displayed two inline buttons:
|
|
|
|
- `A. 繼續`
|
|
- `B. 就這樣吧，不需要額外處理`
|
|
|
|
This proves that the Telegram outbound reply chain can be decorated with reply-end controls.
|
|
|
|
### 2. Callback clicks can be received
|
|
|
|
The callback flow was debugged and proven through:
|
|
|
|
- visible button click effects
|
|
- explicit callback acknowledgement replies
|
|
- callback-specific debug logging
|
|
|
|
This proves that Telegram callback queries are being received and handled by the patched OpenClaw Telegram runtime.
|
|
|
|
### 3. Callback state can be persisted
|
|
|
|
After clicking a reply-end button, a state file was successfully written:
|
|
|
|
- `~/.openclaw/reply-end-controls.json`
|
|
|
|
Observed stored fields included:
|
|
|
|
- `lastChoice`
|
|
- `lastChoiceAt`
|
|
- `sourceMessageId`
|
|
- `sourceCallbackId`
|
|
- `active`
|
|
|
|
This proves that button selection is not just a UI event; it becomes durable runtime state.
|
|
|
|
### 4. Callback flow can update Telegram UI
|
|
|
|
When the `continue` button was clicked, the Telegram UI updated and showed the selected state, confirming that callback handling can mutate the original inline keyboard state.
|
|
|
|
### 5. Callback flow can send visible acknowledgement replies
|
|
|
|
The patched handler successfully emitted visible confirmation replies such as:
|
|
|
|
- `reply-end-controls: continue received`
|
|
- `reply-end-controls: stop received`
|
|
|
|
This provides a strong human-visible proof that callback handling executed.
|
|
|
|
### 6. Stored stop state can influence the next assistant turn
|
|
|
|
After `stop` was selected, a later inbound message was processed with a stop-state instruction injected before the assistant run.
|
|
|
|
Observed outcome:
|
|
|
|
- the assistant still replied,
|
|
- but it became materially more restrained,
|
|
- and it stopped producing the earlier style of long proactive extension / checklist expansion.
|
|
|
|
This proves the state is not merely recorded; it can influence later assistant behavior.
|
|
|
|
## What exactly succeeded end-to-end
|
|
|
|
The following chain is now real and working:
|
|
|
|
1. assistant reply generated
|
|
2. Telegram reply-end buttons attached
|
|
3. user clicks `continue` or `stop`
|
|
4. callback query reaches OpenClaw Telegram runtime
|
|
5. callback state is persisted
|
|
6. UI/acknowledgement response can be generated
|
|
7. later assistant behavior can read that state and change tone/continuation behavior
|
|
|
|
## Limits of the current PoC
|
|
|
|
The PoC is successful, but not finished as a product feature.
|
|
|
|
### 1. Stop behavior is only partially hardened
|
|
|
|
The `stop` choice clearly influences behavior, but the assistant can still continue in a softened internal way instead of fully hard-stopping.
|
|
|
|
Current result:
|
|
|
|
- the assistant becomes more restrained
|
|
- but may still continue some internal follow-up rather than ending absolutely
|
|
|
|
### 2. The implementation currently uses local patches inside the `openclawtest` runtime
|
|
|
|
The PoC proves feasibility, but some of the changes are currently local runtime patches rather than a clean packaged integration path.
|
|
|
|
### 3. Only Telegram is in scope
|
|
|
|
This project is intentionally Telegram-only right now.
|
|
|
|
### 4. The callback/state path needs productization
|
|
|
|
The PoC shows the path works. It still needs to be cleaned into a maintainable, reusable plugin/integration structure.
|
|
|
|
## Recommended next step
|
|
|
|
The most sensible next step after this PoC is:
|
|
|
|
- turn the Telegram PoC patch set into a cleaner implementation boundary
|
|
- reduce direct runtime patching
|
|
- harden the `stop` policy so it more strongly suppresses proactive continuation
|
|
|
|
## Final judgment
|
|
|
|
The Telegram + OpenClaw PoC should be considered successful.
|
|
|
|
It has crossed the threshold from design-only work into a real, user-visible, callback-capable interaction control path.
|