Bind the new layout policy into provider-pack identity and verify it on controller and guest while preserving legacy immutable packs and approved image root aliases.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Keep requested branch attachment separate from ownership established by realization, and round-trip the optional intent through the shared request contract.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Keep requested branch attachment separate from ownership established by realization, and round-trip the optional intent through the shared request contract.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Assemble the shared runtime prerequisite from the frozen Boat implementation, including its owning tests and the minimal computer target identity dependency.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Integrate e733bddc45 while preserving Boat admission deferral and ownership fences. Verify agent and instance Boat selection without acquiring a lease.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Pull requests to this repository run a large CI matrix. The slowest
check sets the time a contributor waits for a green run.
> - After #15849 hid the verifier's downloads behind package staging,
the `Build` lane is still the slowest check in five of the eight fully
green PR runs created after that merge (535s to 581s; the top server
shard is 529s to 560s in the other three). `Build` is about 100s of
setup, 160s to 176s of `pnpm build`, and 265s to 312s of the public
install verifier.
> - Inside `pnpm build`, every package after `@paperclipai/shared` waits
on the Runner: its `build` script takes 76s to 80s, and for 65s of that
it is the only job running. The chain runs `build:typescript` three
times: once directly, then again inside `check:semantic-contracts` and
`check:runner-workflow-traceability`, which rebuild first so they work
standalone. The server's `prepare:runner-vendor` then runs the whole
Runner build a second time, so the job pays for four redundant
TypeScript passes.
> - Each pass is two `tsc` projects, the eval-kernel rebuild, and the
schema checks, 7s to 8s on the CI runner. The dist they rebuild is the
dist the first pass just wrote; nothing between the passes changes it.
> - This pull request calls the two check scripts directly after the
chain's own `build:typescript`, the way `generate-replay-goldens.mjs
--check` already does in the same line. The standalone `check:*` scripts
keep their rebuild.
> - The benefit is about 30s off the `Build` job's critical path, about
15s off the Typecheck job and every Docker or release build that runs
the server build, with no change to what is checked.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Describe the enhancement**
The `Build` PR check is the slowest check in most green PR runs. Its
`pnpm build` step compiles the Runner's TypeScript surface four times:
three passes inside one Runner `build`, and a second full Runner `build`
from the server's `prepare:runner-vendor`. Only the first pass produces
a dist that the later steps read; the other three rewrite the same
output.
**Why is this needed**
The slowest check decides the wall-clock time of every PR run. In the
eight fully green PR runs created after 2026-10-11 04:10Z, `Build`
topped five of them at 535s to 581s. The Runner build sits alone on the
`pnpm build` critical path for about 65s, and the server build repeats
it. From the job logs of four of those runs, the second and third
`build:typescript` passes cost 7s to 8s each, in both Runner builds, so
about 30s per job.
**Proposed solution**
In the Runner's `build` script, replace `pnpm run
check:semantic-contracts && pnpm run check:runner-workflow-traceability`
with `node scripts/generate-semantic-contracts.mjs --check && node
scripts/check-runner-workflow-traceability.mjs`. Both scripts read
`dist/`, which `build:typescript` wrote earlier in the same chain, and
the steps between them are `--check` runs that write nothing to `dist/`.
Add a guard test so the chain compiles TypeScript exactly once and both
checks still run after it.
**Alternatives considered**
- Skip the server's `prepare:runner-vendor` rebuild when `pnpm -r build`
already built the Runner. That rebuild is what makes `pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server build` correct standalone (the Dockerfile uses it),
and the server's build-script test pins the command. A freshness check
would be a larger semantic change; this PR shrinks the rebuild instead
of removing it, and the next cycle can measure what remains.
- Make `tsc` incremental across the passes. It would still re-run the
schema checks and the eval-kernel build each time, and would add
build-info files to the package.
- Change `check:semantic-contracts` and
`check:runner-workflow-traceability` themselves to stop rebuilding. They
are documented standalone commands (`pnpm --dir
packages/paperclip-runner check:semantic-contracts` in the capability
docs) and must work from a stale dist; unchanged here.
## What Changed
- `packages/paperclip-runner/package.json`: the `build` script runs
`node scripts/generate-semantic-contracts.mjs --check` and `node
scripts/check-runner-workflow-traceability.mjs` directly, after its own
`build:typescript`, instead of the `check:semantic-contracts` and
`check:runner-workflow-traceability` wrappers that rebuild first. Every
other step, its order, and the standalone `check:*` scripts are
unchanged.
- `server/src/__tests__/server-package-build-script.test.ts`: a new test
in the suite that already pins the server's Runner vendoring reads the
Runner's `build` script, resolves every `pnpm run` step, and asserts
that exactly one step compiles TypeScript (directly or through a
wrapper), that both check scripts are in the chain, and that both come
after `build:typescript`. It fails against the previous script with
`expected [ 'build:typescript', …(2) ] to deeply equal [
'build:typescript' ]`.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/server-package-build-script.test.ts`: 9 pass (1 new). With
the `package.json` change stashed, the new test fails as described above
and the other 8 pass.
- In `packages/paperclip-runner`, the new chain without the cargo step
(`check:protocol-manifest`, `build:typescript`,
`check:capability-contract`, `check:capability-inventory`,
`check:protocol-coverage`, `generate-semantic-contracts.mjs --check`,
`check-runner-workflow-traceability.mjs`, `generate-replay-goldens.mjs
--check`, `generate-semantic-action-catalog.mjs --check`) exits 0:
`Runner stress traceability passed: 44 findings, 12 workflows, 1
explicit exclusion.` and `Replay golden snapshots and parity summaries
are current.` Cargo is not installed on the host that produced this PR,
so `build:binary` was not run locally; it is unchanged and runs in this
PR's `Build` job.
- `pnpm run build:typescript` alone takes 5.8s to 5.9s on this host, so
each removed pass is in the range the CI logs show.
- This PR's own `Build` job runs `pnpm build` from the branch checkout,
so its log shows the new chain in both Runner builds. Expected on that
job: `pnpm build` about 130s to 146s (was 160s to 176s on the four
measured runs), `Build` about 505s to 551s (was 535s to 581s).
**Measured on the four post-#15849 `master` runs that motivated this
PR** (`Build` job logs):
| Run | `pnpm build` | Runner build in `pnpm -r build` | Extra
`build:typescript` passes in it | Runner rebuild in server build | Extra
passes in it |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 38112764439 | 169s | 76s | 04:51:52 and 04:52:00 (about 14s) |
04:53:12 to 04:53:41 | 04:53:26 and 04:53:34 (about 15s) |
| 38111191543 | 176s | 79s | 04:22:40 and 04:22:48 (about 14s) |
04:24:04 to 04:24:34 | 04:24:18 and 04:24:26 (about 15s) |
| 38110914319 | 160s | 75s | 04:19:07 and 04:19:14 (about 14s) |
04:20:25 to 04:20:53 | 04:20:39 and 04:20:46 (about 14s) |
| 38110897745 | 172s | 80s | 04:15:16 and 04:15:25 (about 15s) |
04:16:41 to 04:17:11 | 04:16:55 and 04:17:03 (about 15s) |
## Risks
- Low risk. The same two checks run against the same dist, in the same
position in the chain. The only difference is that the dist is not
rewritten twice between them.
- If a future step between `build:typescript` and the two checks starts
writing to `dist/`, the checks would read that output instead of a fresh
rebuild. The steps there today (`check:capability-contract`,
`check:capability-inventory`, `check:protocol-coverage`) are `--check`
runs that only compare generated spec files.
- The standalone `check:semantic-contracts` and
`check:runner-workflow-traceability` scripts still rebuild first, so
documented usage is unchanged.
- The guard test lives in the server's suite because that suite already
pins the Runner vendoring contract and runs in the server shards on
every PR.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5-1`, running as a
Paperclip agent through the Claude local adapter with tool use (shell,
file edits, GitHub CLI). The agent collected the CI data, made the
change, ran the tests, and wrote this description.
## 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)
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Treat completed question-response deliveries as history only after their exact same-company handoff finishes. Preserve missing evidence, retries, accounting debt, and idle-sleep fences.
Add a concurrent all-state question history index with interrupted-build repair. Keep migrations serialized without waiting snapshots that deadlock concurrent index builds.
Validated by 118 focused sleep tests, six migration/snapshot tests, full repository typecheck, all CI gates, and Apex 5/5.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Integrate the scoped production correction and existing config test from 2700054c6a. Full Claude and Codex execute regressions remain in the stacked acceptance PR.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Preserve the exact deployed Boat SQL hash under generated migration 0332 so existing staging databases recognize its history. Keep additive schema and shared exports from both branches.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Human messages start agent work through task, chat, and
external-channel intake.
> - Agent startup can delay the first visible response.
> - A small direct model call can acknowledge the request while normal
work starts.
> - This response must remain separate from evidence that the agent
answered or completed work.
> - This pull request adds optional company-wide fast responses with
durable receipts, access checks, and cost accounting.
> - Users receive prompt acknowledgement without changing the agent
execution path.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: database, shared contracts, server orchestration,
connections, and UI.
**Problem or motivation**
Users can wait for an agent to start before they receive a contextual
response. Generic progress messages do not confirm what the user asked.
An acknowledgement must not falsely complete work or satisfy an
unanswered turn.
**Proposed solution**
Add a disabled-by-default experimental fast-response model using an
existing shared API connection. Generate one short acknowledgement for
each accepted human turn. Use the existing agent identity and external
publication outboxes. Retain platform provenance and account for the
inference independently.
**Alternatives considered**
Running the acknowledgement through the agent runtime adds startup
latency. Restricting implementation to OpenRouter leaves other existing
API connections unsupported. This change supports all existing API
connections and uses OpenRouter for live verification.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends existing agent communication and connection settings.
ROADMAP.md and open pull requests were checked. No duplicate
fast-response implementation was found. The maintainer supplied the
feature plan directly.
## What Changed
- Add Experimental fast responses to instance settings. Keep the feature
off by default. Enforce the flag at intake, dispatch, and publication.
- Move Decision model and Fast response setup to company Settings →
Connections when the experiment is enabled. Place Connections below
Environments. Separate the model sections with clear headings and a
divider. Keep Decision model in General when the experiment is off.
Route Costs setup links to the available settings page.
- Make the acknowledgement prompt a multiline template string. Ask for a
brief, positive response in the user’s language.
- Add settings, connection/model selection, sponsorship, fixed-sample
testing, and Costs history.
- Add a Vercel AI SDK text service for existing native, routed, Bedrock,
and local API connections.
- Add durable per-turn requests, a bounded worker, a three-second
admission deadline, and one inference attempt.
- Integrate task creation, task and agent chat, steering, queued
follow-ups, experimental board chat, shared chat intake, and email.
- Preserve receipt provenance and exclude receipts from completion,
recovery, interaction resolution, and agent wakeups.
- Recheck authorization, source validity, real replies, budgets, and
destination binding before publication. Preserve accounting for
suppressed or uncertain outcomes.
- Add provider contracts, database race tests, channel outbox tests, UI
tests, Stories, and documentation. Keep decision-model execution
unchanged.
## Verification
- Local `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and UI token gates pass after
rebase. The UI typecheck and build also pass after the final navigation
fixes. All 37 focused navigation tests pass. The first full local `pnpm
test:run` invocation reported seven chat failures. All seven passed in
isolated reruns after fixture updates and host cleanup. This invocation
was stopped after the full final-head CI suite passed.
- Initial local database tests hit macOS shared-memory exhaustion. A
diagnostic confirmed `shmget: No space left on device` with the system
limit of 32 IDs. Three abandoned, unattached PostgreSQL IPC headers were
reclaimed. The isolated rerun passed all 31 fast-response and channel
tests. The two additional Slack regression cases also passed in a
separate rerun. No active database was stopped.
- UI token gates pass. Provider contract tests cover all supported API
connection types. Fast-response tests cover uniqueness, authorization,
budgets, expiry, cancellation, restart, real-reply races, and the
experimental flag.
- The test drive verified that disabling the experiment hides
Connections and redirects its direct URL. Enabling it restores the saved
OpenRouter setup. After restart on the final commit, the OpenRouter
settings sample returned “Sure, I’ll take care of fixing the border
around the settings panel.” in 428 ms. It used 260 input and 31 output
tokens and recorded $0.0000576 in reported cost.
- Earlier live OpenRouter verification produced a receipt in 1.013
seconds for a new task. The real agent then supplied its substantive
answer. A separate settings test took 1.34 seconds, used 246 input and
23 output tokens, and recorded $0.0000361.
- Live Slack verification on final commit
`24016fa525961ebc7a4acffdc5019ce123970549` passed for a fresh initial
task and a follow-up in a disposable bot DM. The initial acknowledgement
appeared 2.405 seconds after the Slack message and 1.413 seconds after
durable acceptance; the follow-up appeared in 2.322 seconds and 1.160
seconds respectively. The recorded generation/settlement durations were
898 ms and 697 ms. The initial call used 291 input / 39 output tokens
and cost $0.00006705; the follow-up used 281 / 47 and cost $0.00007035.
- The Slack acknowledgements retained the assigned agent identity and
`origin: fast_response`, source-turn references, and no fabricated run
ID. A status snapshot after the initial receipt showed the task still
`in_progress` with its real execution run. The agent then read the CSV
fixture and correctly reported two ready items, two blockers, and their
owners. Both replies stayed in the originating DM, and no duplicate
generic working message followed the delivered contextual
acknowledgements. The `new` command started a fresh conversation session
without generating a fast response.
- An earlier eligible Slack turn generated a response but suppressed
publication. Its reported cost was retained, generic progress remained,
and the real agent completed the requested result. This is recorded
separately from the two delivered acknowledgements; the history did not
expose a precise suppression reason.
- Slack verification used real signed provider events, the existing
intake/publication paths, and a user-approved temporary webhook-only
HTTPS tunnel. Subscriptions were limited to direct-message events. The
test bot was paused and the tunnel stopped afterward. Live
channel/group-thread and GitHub journeys remain unverified; their mocked
tests cover intake, destination binding, publication, and continued
underlying work.
- Greptile reviewed final commit
`24016fa525961ebc7a4acffdc5019ce123970549` at 5/5. Both new review
findings are fixed and all threads are resolved. [Final-head CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38060015730)
passed. This includes grouped server/chat/workspace tests, serialized
suites, runner checks, browser journeys, typecheck, build, release
registry, policy, and the canary dry run.
- Manual check: enable Experimental fast responses. Open company
Settings → Connections. Select a shared API connection and model. Save
and use Test response. Submit a task message and confirm that its
receipt does not complete the task.
## Risks
- The migration adds receipt and configuration tables plus accounting
references. It uses idempotent statements and follows the current
migration sequence.
- A slow provider, authorization change, or real-agent reply can
suppress an acknowledgement. Existing progress feedback remains
available.
- Unknown provider billing retains a reservation until reconciliation.
External deliveries with uncertain outcomes must not be blindly
repeated.
- Live Slack initial-task and follow-up DM journeys pass. Live Slack
channel/group-thread and GitHub journeys remain unverified. The PR
remains a draft and records these gaps. Final-head repository CI and
automated review pass.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, and browser interaction. The runtime does not expose an exact
model snapshot ID or context-window size; these are not asserted.
## 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>
Preserve the two existing additive runtime acceptance suites in the stacked feature PR while keeping browser synchronization fixes in the independently checked core branch.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
* origin/master:
fix(pi-local): avoid embedding model catalogue in errors (#13628)
fix(opencode-local): run in the realized workspace (#11438)
fix(ui): align chat connection and recovery cards (#15771)
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Fence admission and ordinary commands at warm expiry, reserve exact-generation process control for at most thirty seconds of shutdown, and always retire the owned slice after graceful close or timeout.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
The combined feature branch retains the complete execution-target tests; this runtime branch preserves the production fix with its existing baseline suite.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The pi-local adapter discovers and validates models before it starts
a local Pi process
> - An unavailable-model error included model IDs from the discovered
catalogue
> - Repeating those IDs made persisted and rendered failures noisy and
exposed substitute choices
> - This pull request keeps the requested model, reports the available
count, and points to the existing lookup command
> - The benefit is a concise error without changing model discovery or
matching
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes#13612
## What Changed
- Replace model catalogue interpolation in unavailable-model errors with
the requested model, normalized model count, and `pi --list-models`.
- Add a regression test with 13 discovered models and exact
error-message matching.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapters/pi-local/src/server/models.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapters/pi-local/src/server/*.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-pi-local typecheck`
- `git diff --check`
All listed checks pass locally. The test suite uses a temporary Pi
executable and verifies that model IDs are not appended to the error.
## Risks
Low risk. Only unavailable-model error wording changes. Model discovery,
matching, valid model execution, and failure handling remain unchanged.
Full repository CI was not run locally because the host uses Node
22.22.1 and the repository declares Node >=24.11.0.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5.6 Luna (`gpt-5.6-luna`); tool-assisted code execution. 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)
- [ ] 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 #13612)
- [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
- [ ] 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip adapters start each agent in its selected workspace
> - Paperclip can realize a different workspace path for local and
remote runs
> - The OpenCode CLI prefers its inherited `PWD` when no `--dir` option
is present
> - The process `cwd` option does not update the inherited `PWD` value
> - This pull request passes the realized workspace to OpenCode with
`--dir`
> - The benefit is that OpenCode sessions and tools use the workspace
that Paperclip selected
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No matching issue exists.
Refs #8287. That earlier pull request describes the realized remote
workspace path. It does not make the OpenCode CLI use that path.
I searched open and closed issues and pull requests for `opencode
--dir`, `opencode cwd PWD`, and `opencode workspace directory`. I found
no duplicate.
**What happened?**
Paperclip gives the OpenCode process the correct operating system `cwd`.
However, the adapter does not pass OpenCode's `--dir` option. OpenCode
uses `process.env.PWD` before `process.cwd()` when `--dir` is absent. A
server `PWD` that differs from the realized workspace can therefore
place the OpenCode session and its tools in the wrong directory.
**Expected behavior**
OpenCode must use the workspace that Paperclip realized for the run. An
explicit `--dir` in `extraArgs` must remain valid and must not be
duplicated.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start the Paperclip server from directory A.
2. Configure an OpenCode agent with directory B, or realize directory B
on a remote execution target.
3. Start a run without a manual `--dir` value in `extraArgs`.
4. Inspect the OpenCode session directory or run a directory-sensitive
tool.
5. Before this change, OpenCode can use directory A from the inherited
`PWD`.
6. After this change, OpenCode receives `--dir B`.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`b38d6ddb811b3ff3145ff5df60174eb9e7313fe6`
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server. The same adapter path is used in local development
and remote execution.
**Installation method**
Built from source.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
OpenCode.
**Database mode**
Not database-related.
**Additional context**
OpenCode v1.17.13 defines `--dir` and uses the inherited `PWD` as its
fallback root. See the [OpenCode run command
source](https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/blob/10c894bdeef3618f5666fb506ef7f9491bb964d8/packages/opencode/src/cli/cmd/run.ts#L333-L339).
## What Changed
- Add the realized execution workspace as `--dir` for OpenCode runs.
- Preserve an explicit `--dir` or `--dir=...` value from `extraArgs`.
- Stop option detection at the first `--` terminator.
- Extend the remote execution tests for realized, explicit, and
post-terminator directory arguments.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapters/opencode-local/src` passed: 7
files and 40 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-opencode-local typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-opencode-local build` passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed for all 31 selected workspace projects.
- `pnpm build` passed for all selected workspace projects.
- `git diff --check` passed.
I also ran `pnpm test:run`. It completed with 334 test files passing and
2 test files failing. It reported 3,790 passing tests and 4 skipped
tests. The two failures are in `issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts` and
`workspace-runtime.test.ts`. Each failure reproduces on the unchanged
base commit after this pull request is removed. Neither test imports or
covers the OpenCode adapter.
## Risks
- The behavior change is limited to OpenCode run arguments.
- A custom old OpenCode binary that does not support `--dir` will reject
the option. The current official OpenCode v1.17.13 CLI supports it.
- An explicit operator `--dir` remains authoritative. The adapter does
not add a duplicate option because OpenCode's parser converts repeated
string options to an array.
- This change does not modify schemas, migrations, APIs, telemetry, or
user data.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a more specific
model ID or context-window size. The agent used high-depth reasoning,
repository access, shell execution, and GitHub tools.
## 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
- [ ] 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: commitperclip-bot <305974387+commitperclip-bot@users.noreply.github.com>
Preserve the original baseline suites on the backend branch while the full Boat feature branch retains all added runtime-context, transport, and SSH acceptance coverage.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Dotta