mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-26 18:31:34 +01:00
codex/github-access-summary
11
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Dotta
|
0f94521017 |
fix(runner): restore local session and task integrity (#12721)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for agents that perform work. > - Paperclip Runner connects durable provider sessions to individual task runs through PRP. > - Provider continuity and per-run authority are different lifetimes. > - The existing implementation mixed those lifetimes and lost event metadata between provider frames, runnerd, persistence, API sanitization, and the task thread. > - That caused failed continuation, missing progress and Plans, duplicate replies, hidden failures, and unsafe recovery. > - This repair gives every heartbeat fresh authority, preserves qualified provider-session continuity, and restores one lossless presentation path without changing direct adapters. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A second native heartbeat could reuse tickets, leases, command receipts, sequence state, and run identity from the first heartbeat. Provider phase and item identity could be lost before the UI read them. Redaction could corrupt protocol discriminators while still missing malformed credential tails. The task thread could fold progress into the final response, hide failures, or show more than one final answer. Native Codex also exposed approval modes that do not yet have a durable approval bridge. **Expected behavior** Each heartbeat uses a new PRP authority epoch. Codex and OpenCode preserve exact qualified provider sessions; ACPX emits an explicit continuity event when its qualified process-replacement policy is used. Every accepted provider event is presented, classified as internal, or surfaced as unsupported. The task page shows chronological progress, reasoning summaries, activity, Plans, interactions, terminal failures, and exactly one final reply. Direct adapters retain their existing path. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable the unified experimental Paperclip Runner setting. 2. Create a local native Codex, OpenCode, ACPX Claude, or ACPX Codex agent. 3. Run response, Plan, structured-question/resume, restart, cancellation, and failure scenarios. 4. Reload the task while active, waiting, failed, and settled. 5. On the old implementation, observe stale run authority, missing classifications, incomplete output, or duplicated/folded replies. **Paperclip version or commit** The repair is based directly on `master` at `87d05e194b643810d16d20612115acd01d735d43`. **Deployment mode** Local development with the embedded database. Related work: Refs #12616, #12646, #12666, #12685, and #12700. ## What Changed - Rotates PRP control-plane, outbox, ticket, lease, command, receipt, and sequence authority for each heartbeat while carrying forward only a validated provider-session identity. - Reads `control-plane-state.json`, validates both durable schemas and lifecycle values, resumes coherent current runs, archives qualified settled authority, and quarantines malformed or mismatched scoped state without moving ambiguous live legacy state. - Preserves Codex provider phase and stable item identities so commentary remains progress and only `final_answer` becomes final. - Adds raw OpenCode HTTP/SSE boundary coverage and canonical reasoning lifecycle mapping. - Makes ACPX normalization lossless for visible reasoning, tool lifecycle metadata, stable bounded identities, Plan revisions, structured requests, failures, and qualified process replacement. Only the compatible terminal assistant message is promoted as final. - Applies schema-aware redaction before generic JWT-shaped detection and scans every diagnostic string leaf. Malformed raw/escaped quoted credential tails are redacted in both server and durable Rust state. - Restores snapshot-style chronological task presentation, expandable tool activity, inline Plan cards, visible waiting/resume/cancel/failure states, and exactly one final answer. - Makes `never` the only qualified native Codex permission mode and rejects unsupported persisted native modes with remediation. OpenCode and ACPX policies remain intact. - Keeps the unified experimental Runner setting as the only enablement flag. Onboarding and direct Codex, Claude, and OpenCode stay on their legacy execution/finalization paths. - Adds cross-language goldens, authority/recovery/fault coverage, exact response/count assertions, and native plus legacy acceptance scenarios. ## Verification - Pull-request GitHub Actions run Rust formatting/tests, TypeScript checks, server/UI tests, builds, protocol drift checks, browser E2E, and security scans. - A separate workflow-only validation ref is pinned directly on this PR head and runs the 35-cell paid local matrix: three core scenarios plus structured-question resume and restart/resume for native Codex, native OpenCode, ACPX Claude, ACPX Codex, and direct Codex/Claude/OpenCode. Run: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/33682434315 - Acceptance requires exact single visible replies, monotonic sequences, matching envelope discriminators, one semantic terminal, one run terminal, no unresolved interaction, no duplicate mutation, no secret leakage, provider continuity, and zero native rows for direct adapters. - Per maintainer direction, tests are running in GitHub Actions rather than on the slower local host. Only formatters and static diff checks were run locally. ## Risks - Recovery from old or partial filesystem state is sensitive. The repair fails closed, preserves active or unverifiable authority, and quarantines only state whose scoped ownership is safe to move. - Provider event formats can change. Closed validators and boundary goldens turn new or malformed events into visible diagnostics instead of silent drops. - Shared task presentation could affect direct adapters. Runtime-fact gating plus the direct-adapter matrix protect the existing path. - Managed and remote providers are not qualified here. Shared code continues to compile and fail safely, but live qualification is deferred. > 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 exact deployed snapshot and context-window size are not exposed to this task. It used agentic reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, Git, parallel subagents, and GitHub Actions. ## 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 and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass (intentionally deferred to GitHub Actions) - [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 risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] The paid local-provider matrix is 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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
5458940a6e |
feat(runner): add offline evaluation tooling (#12653)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Runner needs repeatable evaluation contracts. > - Evaluation code must stay separate from provider launch and production orchestration. > - Offline fixtures need stable compatibility, scoring, traceability, and report rules. > - Published Runner consumers need only the supported evaluation contract surface. > - This pull request adds offline evaluation tooling and a workspace-private matrix kernel. > - The benefit is deterministic evaluation without credentials or paid provider calls. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11297 This pull request extracts the offline evaluation unit from the earlier aggregate Runner work. ## What Changed - Add a workspace-private, provider-neutral evaluation matrix kernel. - Add the public `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner/evals` compatibility and native execution contracts. - Add fail-closed runnerd artifact and protocol compatibility checks. - Add deterministic workflow catalogs, scoring, traceability, and report generation. - Add sanitized Codex, OpenCode, and ACPX fixtures. - Add package-boundary and clean-consumer checks. - Add the eval package manifest to the Docker dependency stage. - Add the generated protocol fixture digest without changing the lockfile. ## Verification GitHub Actions must run: - Runner TypeScript and Rust type checks. - Runner unit and protocol tests. - Evaluation kernel tests. - Workflow traceability checks. - Clean-consumer and package-boundary checks. - Repository test, type-check, build, policy, and security gates. No local test command was run. The repository owner requested GitHub-only verification. ## Risks This is a large greenfield review surface with 51 files. The code does not launch a live provider or load credentials. Package and protocol drift fail closed. The workspace lockfile remains under the existing CI-owned process. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with the GPT-5 agent model. The work used high reasoning, repository inspection, tool use, and parallel code review. ## 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 - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
560e7e48b5 |
feat(runner): add SDK and developer tooling (#12608)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner package already provides the production protocol and execution spine. > - Contributors still need stable SDK surfaces, deterministic test tools, and local inspection tools. > - Those surfaces share generated contracts and must change as one package boundary. > - This pull request adds the package-local SDK, labs, examples, and drift checks. > - The benefit is a reviewable developer platform that does not change application execution selection. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** `packages/paperclip-runner` — runner SDK, conformance tools, and developer tooling. **Problem or motivation** The production runner spine is present, but package consumers cannot build deterministic integrations, inspect sessions, or verify provider-neutral behavior through supported surfaces. **Proposed solution** Add browser, React, standalone, live-session, scenario, conformance, and evaluation surfaces. Add generated contract inventories and package-local verification scripts. Keep production application routing unchanged. **Alternatives considered** We considered splitting each generated catalog, SDK surface, and demo into separate pull requests. Those changes share exports, fixtures, and drift gates. Splitting them would create intermediate package states that do not build. **Roadmap alignment** No overlapping item appears in `ROADMAP.md`. This work extends the runner package that is already on `master`. ## What Changed - Add browser, React, standalone, live-session, and issue-thread SDK surfaces. - Add deterministic mock control-plane, scenario, conformance, replay, and evaluation tools. - Add bounded Codex, OpenCode, and ACPX development transports and fixtures. - Keep deferred managed-provider execution fail-closed. Persisted compatibility data remains readable. - Add generated capability inventories with their source files and drift checks. - Add examples, package documentation, browser checks, and clean-consumer checks. - Preserve the reviewed protocol bounds, replay compatibility aliases, process environment isolation, and semantic redaction limits. - Update the ACPX package patch that the existing workspace patch registry already tracks. - Do not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`, repository workflows, server runtime selection, or the application UI. ## Verification GitHub Actions is the verification authority for this pull request. The repository CI, package TypeScript and Rust checks, package tests, generated-output drift checks, browser checks, security scans, and Greptile review must pass on the exact head. Local test suites were not run because this series uses parallel GitHub Actions for verification. ## Risks This is a large greenfield package change. The main risks are public export drift, generated-output drift, and optional React consumer compatibility. Package boundary checks, clean-consumer checks, and browser tests cover those risks. Production adapter selection and server execution are outside this pull request. ## Stack 1. **This PR:** runner SDK and developer tooling. 2. [Codex production server integration](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12616). 3. [Provider-neutral task-thread UI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12617). ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, high-reasoning mode, with tool use and code execution. ## 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 described the issue in-PR following the feature request template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [ ] 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 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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
2e5a24e177 |
feat(runner): add qualified OpenCode runtime (#12588)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Runner provides a durable execution boundary for supported providers. > - The current production runtime supports Codex but cannot execute OpenCode sessions. > - OpenCode needs a qualified transport, strict input mapping, and normalized events. > - This pull request adds the OpenCode runtime as one isolated provider unit. > - The benefit is a reviewable provider expansion that does not weaken the existing Codex path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: packages/paperclip-runner and the Codex-local adapter configuration contract. **Problem or motivation** Paperclip Runner has provider-neutral contracts, but the production backend factory cannot start a qualified OpenCode session. This blocks OpenCode from using the durable runner path. **Proposed solution** Add the qualified OpenCode app-server proxy, driver, MCP bridge, backend, fixtures, and factory wiring. Keep existing Codex behavior unchanged. **Alternatives considered** Keeping OpenCode only on the direct adapter path would avoid this runtime work, but it would not provide durable runner recovery or normalized provider events. **Roadmap alignment** ROADMAP.md does not list a conflicting provider-runtime project. This change extends the existing Paperclip Runner architecture. ## What Changed - Added the qualified OpenCode app-server proxy and input queue. - Added collaboration-mode and provider-event normalization. - Added the OpenCode MCP bridge and native session backend. - Added strict fixtures and focused unit coverage. - Added only the package exports and adapter configuration required by this runtime. - Kept deferred SDK, lab, eval, and public package surfaces out of this change. ## Verification - GitHub Actions is the authoritative verification environment for this PR. - Run the package type checks and focused OpenCode tests in CI. - Run repository typecheck, test, build, security, and policy gates through the stack-aware workflow. - Local tests were not run because this checkout is resource constrained. ## Risks - OpenCode protocol changes could affect event normalization or recovery. - The driver fails closed on malformed input and unsupported runtime behavior. - Existing Codex selection remains unchanged unless the stored provider is OpenCode. > 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. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with repository tools, code execution, and parallel agent review. ## 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 linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — GitHub Actions is authoritative for this resource-constrained checkout - [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 ## Stack - Position: 1 of 4 - Base: master - Next: additional qualified provider runtimes |
||
|
Dotta
|
b93ad538b6 |
test(runner): add question adapter conformance (#12409)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner maps provider questions to one versioned Paperclip contract. > - Codex and ACPX now perform that mapping through separate adapters. > - Separate adapter tests do not prove that both paths preserve the same user-visible form. > - Fixture validation must also match production behavior for optional answers and unsupported patterns. > - This pull request adds shared fixtures, validation, and cross-adapter conformance checks. > - The benefit is a reusable question contract for later providers without enabling a new runtime. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12408 This pull request builds on the Codex ACPX question bridge merged in #12408. It adds fixture and generator checks for the existing Codex and ACPX question adapters. It does not add another provider or production execution path. ## What Changed - Add a canonical ACPX form fixture and native response. Mark the equivalent Codex fixture field as required. - Add shared validation for question IDs, option IDs, answer modes, required answers, text bounds, numeric bounds, and response shapes. - Evaluate fixture-only regular expressions in a bounded child process. Reject patterns that cannot finish safely. - Validate ACPX fixtures against a manifest-side mirror of the production form projection. Reject free-text ACPX patterns, but ignore patterns on enumerated option fields. - Accept explicit empty optional answers and omit them from the projected ACPX response, which matches the production parser. - Validate every question fixture during manifest generation and regenerate the checked-in manifest. - Add cross-adapter tests that compare user-visible presentation while preserving provider-owned IDs and provider-specific response conversion. - Add negative regressions for malformed forms, invalid responses, unsafe patterns, special property names, and projection drift. ## Verification - Replay base: `4fe3189f0256873a359d2d53c209076919fd1c3b` (`master` after #12408 merged). - Exact replay head: `0532e7dfbb5a246033ffeef55a0c0013fdab07f1`. - Stable patch ID for the intended seven-file delta: `28154d86b2c37e0e8d442419e26703584852f67e`. - The intended pull request delta contains exactly these seven files: - `packages/paperclip-runner/protocol/fixtures/questions/acpx.json` - `packages/paperclip-runner/protocol/fixtures/questions/codex.json` - `packages/paperclip-runner/protocol/manifest.json` - `packages/paperclip-runner/scripts/generate-protocol-manifest.mjs` - `packages/paperclip-runner/scripts/protocol-contract.mjs` - `packages/paperclip-runner/src/contracts/question-adapter-conformance.test.ts` - `packages/paperclip-runner/test/protocol-contract.test.mjs` - The intended combined delta is 1,211 additions and 20 deletions. - This change does not add a dependency, lockfile update, migration, workflow, server route, UI change, documentation file, or production runtime change. - GitHub Actions run `33352004952` passed the complete matrix on retry at the unchanged exact head, including protocol/package verification, build, typecheck/release-registry, general and serialized server suites, canary, and all e2e shards. - Superagent, Socket, Snyk, contributor-trust, policy, and PR-review checks pass on the exact replay head. - Greptile reviewed the exact replay head at 5/5 with no blocking finding and zero unresolved review threads. - No local test result is claimed. GitHub Actions is the authoritative verification environment for the replayed revision. ## Risks This change has low runtime risk because it changes fixtures, generator validation, generated metadata, and tests only. Fixture pattern checks run in a child process with a one-second timeout and a bounded output buffer. The ACPX gate intentionally rejects free-text patterns because the production adapter has no bounded expression engine. It intentionally permits an explicit empty optional answer because production omits that answer from the native response. A validation mismatch can block manifest generation, but it cannot change server selection, direct adapters, or task-page behavior. > 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 with GPT-5.6, extended reasoning, repository tool use, and code execution. ## 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 - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
a9297c3c07 |
test(runner): add Codex trace conformance (#12370)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Codex driver needs a controller-owned oracle for semantic completion and replay > - Provider proposals are advisory and must satisfy the exact task envelope > - Persisted events must be bounded and validated before deterministic replay > - Live provider behaviors also need one checked-in, schema-validated fixture > - This pull request adds that test and conformance layer before the full driver > - The runner adapter remains disabled and no production execution path changes ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** `packages/paperclip-runner` Codex trace, result-validation, and replay conformance. **Problem or motivation** A provider-completed turn is not sufficient authority to finalize a Paperclip run. Results must match the controller-owned completion contract, and persisted provider events must be validated before they can rebuild controller state. **Proposed solution** Add a bounded Codex trace harness that validates result proposals, emits controller decisions and terminals, verifies live/replay parity, and rejects malformed persisted streams. Add a validated fixture for runtime requests, goals, lineage, controls, reconnect identity, and redaction cases. **Alternatives considered** Embedding these assertions only in the production driver would mix controller authority with provider transport behavior and make deterministic replay harder to review. **Roadmap alignment** This supports the Codex-first experimental runner. It does not enable the runner adapter or add another provider. ## What Changed - Added exact task-envelope result validation. - Added bounded persisted-event validation and deterministic replay. - Added a controller-owned Codex trace harness and parity assertions. - Added and validated the checked-in Live console conformance fixture. - Updated the generated protocol manifest with the fixture source. - Added focused result and fixture tests. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - The focused trace-conformance test has 2 passing cases. ## Risks The main risks are accepting a mismatched semantic result or replaying corrupted provider history. Validation covers schema, contract revision, criteria identity, disposition invariants, event identity, uniqueness, ordering, terminal count, and byte limits. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 and repository tool use. ## 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 - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
e18632ebcb |
Add durable semantic tool receipts (#12353)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Semantic tools cross a trust boundary between a provider and the control plane > - Durable runs need exact input, result, denial, duplicate, and reconciliation receipts > - Replay must reject unsupported required versions and mismatched receipt pairs > - This pull request adds the receipt builders and deterministic replay fixtures > - It keeps newer sequence and gap safety limits from the current stack > - The benefit is auditable semantic activity before more providers use it ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** packages/paperclip-runner **Problem or motivation** Semantic tool calls have basic authorization records, but durable replay does not yet cover reconciled calls, denial redaction, duplicate receipts, governance targets, or artifact references. **Proposed solution** Add bounded semantic receipt builders, a reconciled phase, strict pair binding, fail-closed version checks, and generated replay oracles for the important lifecycle cases. **Alternatives considered** The runner could store provider-native tool payloads. That would weaken protocol portability and make redaction and retry behavior provider-specific. **Roadmap alignment** This supports the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It does not enable a production adapter. ## What Changed - Add semantic input and result receipt builders. - Add optional reconciliation receipts for pending calls. - Reject unsupported semantic receipt versions. - Validate receipt correlation, operation, idempotency, and digest bindings. - Add deterministic replay fixtures and generated golden outputs. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - Replay golden and protocol manifest checks pass. - The branch changes 27 files relative to its declared base. ## Risks The main risk is accepting a receipt that belongs to another call or replaying a duplicate as a new mutation. Binding checks compare correlation, operation, idempotency, and content digest fields. Fixtures cover denials, duplicates, governance chains, optional fields, artifacts, and unsupported versions. > 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, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## 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 linked an existing public issue or described the issue in-PR - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
d18e281c33 |
Add the native runner session runtime (#12352)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Paperclip Runner package needs one provider-neutral session loop > - Native execution contracts now define the accepted input and output > - Backends still need bounded execution, recovery, and control-plane ports > - This pull request adds that package-local session runtime > - It does not change server runtime selection or start the experimental runner > - The benefit is a tested execution core for later provider and server layers ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** packages/paperclip-runner **Problem or motivation** The runner contracts do not yet have a shared session loop. Each backend would otherwise duplicate event handoff, terminal handling, recovery cursors, timeouts, and checkpoint behavior. **Proposed solution** Add the native session runtime, backend interfaces, control-plane port, harness driver contract, deterministic conformance helpers, and bounded tests. **Alternatives considered** The server could own this loop. That would mix provider process behavior with server persistence and authority logic. **Roadmap alignment** This is part of the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It does not enable a production adapter. ## What Changed - Add a provider-neutral native session execution loop. - Add recovery cursor reconciliation and checkpoint hooks. - Add bounded timeout and governed-wait behavior. - Add harness driver and control-plane conformance helpers. - Add deterministic backend and session runtime tests. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - Protocol generation and manifest checks pass. - The branch changes 14 files relative to its declared base. ## Risks The main risk is a session that hangs, duplicates an event, or restores the wrong cursor after reconnect. Tests cover terminal events, timeouts, durable handoff, duplicate receipts, recovery, continuity breaks, and checkpoint updates. The change remains package-local. > 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, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## 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 and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [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 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6b20cc97cc |
Add local fake runner supervision (#12095)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Runner needs a small local process model before it can connect to a production provider or server. > - The TypeScript PRP contracts now define the expected replay behavior. > - A second language implementation must produce the same result from the same fixtures. > - Local child processes also need bounded input, bounded output, and complete descendant cleanup. > - This pull request adds a package-local Rust runner, a scripted fake harness, and deterministic parity checks. > - The benefit is a testable process boundary with no production Paperclip behavior change. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting. This pull request adds private test infrastructure to `packages/paperclip-runner`. **Problem or motivation** The PRP contracts have no second implementation on `master`. There is also no small harness that can prove process cleanup, command idempotency, terminal reconciliation, or bounded JSONL handling without a production provider. **Proposed solution** Add a minimal Rust workspace. Add a local runner process, a scripted fake harness, a bounded process supervisor, and Rust conformance and replay checks. Keep all binaries package-local. Do not connect them to the Paperclip server. **Alternatives considered** The combined runner branch includes provider transports, durable networking, SDKs, labs, and server behavior. That change is too large for this review unit. A TypeScript-only harness would not test cross-language contract parity. **Roadmap alignment** This work supports the governed tools and self-healing run direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not add a user-facing runtime, adapter, endpoint, or rollout flag. **Additional context** Refs #12091 and #11962. Pull request #12091 was merged before this branch opened. This branch is based on the current `master`. Its delta is 25 files. ## What Changed - Added a minimal locked Rust workspace with only `serde` and `serde_json` dependencies. - Added a package-local `paperclip-runnerd` local mode and a scripted fake harness. - Added bounded controller input, harness input, subprocess output queues, line sizes, log retention, script sizes, script steps, and command history. - Added contiguous controller and harness sequence checks and equivalent-command replay handling. - Added process-group supervision that cleans up child processes and remaining descendants after forced or natural harness exit. - Added runner-owned terminal reconciliation for success, failure, interruption, cancellation, controller closure, and protocol failure. - Added Rust conformance output and deterministic replay summaries for the shared PRP fixtures. - Added fake scripts for success, failure, interruption, interaction, duplicate terminal output, process cleanup, and oversized output. - Added package scripts and documentation for the Rust and cross-language checks. - Kept provider transport, server integration, semantic tools, and production runtime selection out of this pull request. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` passes. - TypeScript contract tests pass: 8 Node tests and 44 Vitest tests. - Rust tests pass: 20 unit tests, 2 local-runner tests, and 3 process-supervisor tests. - The Rust conformance and replay parity checks pass against the shared fixtures. - The natural-exit and forced-exit tests confirm that the harness and its worker process are stopped. - The oversized-frame test confirms that a harness frame above the configured limit is rejected. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes after the final rebase to `master`. - `pnpm build` passes after the final rebase to `master`. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes. - `git diff --check` passes. - The delta against `master` is 25 files. The package lockfile is unchanged. - `pnpm test:run` completed locally with 4,686 passing tests, 19 skipped tests, and 30 failures in 8 unchanged server test files. The failures are local macOS path-alias, listener, port-range, and workspace-runtime baseline failures. No changed-file test failed, and every applicable Linux CI shard passes. - Storybook visual regression skipped intentionally because this pull request changes no UI or story files. ## Risks Low production risk. No server code invokes the new binaries. The package remains private. The main risks are process leaks, unbounded local input, and cross-language drift. Bounded queues and sizes, process-group cleanup tests, fixture manifests, and parity checks cover these risks. I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This change is private test infrastructure for planned control-plane work. It does not duplicate a shipped or public product surface. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 was used. The exact serving model ID and context size were not exposed. The model used high reasoning, repository tools, GitHub tools, and local code execution. ## 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b2d1673b9e |
Add TypeScript PRP replay contracts (#12091)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Runner needs one typed interpretation of the language-neutral PRP contract. > - The JSON Schemas and fixtures now exist, but TypeScript consumers cannot validate or replay them yet. > - A deterministic reducer must define how duplicate delivery and source gaps affect the projected session. > - Result and question contracts must also validate untrusted provider and user input before later runtime code uses it. > - This pull request adds those TypeScript contracts and replay oracles without adding a process, provider, endpoint, or production behavior. > - The benefit is a reviewable and testable TypeScript foundation for the local runner and transport pull requests. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** This change affects the private `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner` package. It does not change an existing server or adapter execution path. **Problem or motivation** The PRP v1 schemas do not yet provide TypeScript types, runtime validators, normalized result handling, or a deterministic session projection. Later Rust, transport, provider, and server work needs one tested TypeScript oracle instead of separate interpretations. **Proposed solution** Generate a checked-in TypeScript schema bundle from the PRP v1 sources. Add derived types, AJV validation, result and question validation, deterministic replay, a reducer, and generated golden snapshots. Export only these implemented root-package surfaces. **Alternatives considered** The combined runner branch adds the TypeScript contracts together with Rust, providers, semantic authorization, SDKs, labs, and server behavior. That delta is too large for normal review. Handwritten duplicate protocol types would also create a drift risk. **Roadmap alignment** This work supports the governed tool and control-plane direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not enable a new production adapter or endpoint. **Additional context** Refs #12087 and #11962. This pull request was prepared on #12087, then rebased onto its squash merge before opening. The current delta against `master` is 37 files. ## What Changed - Added JSON-Schema-derived PRP v1 types and AJV runtime validation. - Added fail-closed required-version checks and cross-envelope binding checks. - Added provider-neutral completion-result and structured-question contracts. - Added normalization for accepted legacy provider result aliases before strict validation. - Added a deterministic session reducer for replay, duplicate delivery, source gaps, requests, items, results, and terminal state. - Added generated replay snapshots and compact parity summaries for six accepted fixtures. - Added schema-bundle, manifest, and replay-golden drift gates. - Added only the root package export. Deferred testing, SDK, evaluation, lab, provider, and browser entry points remain unavailable. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test` passed with 8 protocol tests and 44 TypeScript tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:replay-goldens` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - `git diff --check` passed. - The delta against its declared base is 37 files. - `pnpm test:run` was executed locally. The package tests pass, while the macOS repository run retains the unchanged local-environment failures documented on #12087. The complete Linux CI matrix must pass on this commit. - A scoped scan found no secret-like values, internal references, or deferred-provider file names. - Greptile found an unbounded sequence-gap allocation. Commit `4a405c17` caps detailed missing IDs at 256, records the full missing count and truncation state, and rejects sequence values above the exact JavaScript integer range. The focused tests, workspace typecheck, build, and token gates pass after this fix. ## Risks Low production risk. The package remains private. This change adds no process, network endpoint, provider bridge, server integration, database change, or execution selection. The main risk is protocol interpretation drift. Generated schema and replay gates detect that drift. Browser and CSP-specific validator packaging remains deferred to its later package boundary. I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This change defines contracts for planned control-plane work and does not add overlapping product behavior. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 was used. The exact serving model ID and context size were not exposed. The model used high reasoning, repository tools, GitHub tools, and local code execution. ## 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 - [ ] 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 <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
fdbc69172d |
feat(runner): add PRP v1 schemas and fixtures (#12087)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Runner needs a language-neutral contract between the server and the runner process. > - A shared contract must exist before TypeScript, Rust, transport, or provider implementations can depend on it. > - Required protocol versions must fail closed, while safe optional fields must remain compatible. > - The contract also needs deterministic fixtures and a drift gate for later cross-language work. > - This pull request adds that contract without adding runtime behavior. > - The benefit is a small, reviewable source of truth for the next implementation pull requests. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting. This pull request adds a private package contract for later server, TypeScript, and Rust work. **Problem or motivation** Paperclip Runner does not have a small language-neutral protocol boundary on `master`. A runtime implementation without this boundary can drift between languages, accept unsupported required versions, or silently change canonical fixtures. **Proposed solution** Add PRP v1 JSON Schemas, accepted and rejected fixtures, a Codex structured-question fixture, and a generated SHA-256 manifest. Run compatibility and manifest checks during the package build. Keep the package private and export nothing in this pull request. **Alternatives considered** The combined runner branch contains schemas together with providers, SDKs, labs, and server behavior. That change is too large for normal review. Generating TypeScript validators in this pull request would also cross into the next review unit. **Roadmap alignment** This contract supports the governed tool and control-plane direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not enable a new production adapter or endpoint. **Additional context** Refs #12084 and #11962. This pull request was reviewed as a stack on #12084, then rebased and retargeted to `master` after #12084 merged. The current delta is 38 files. ## What Changed - Added 20 PRP v1 JSON Schemas with stable identifiers and resolved references, including explicit cross-language conformance input and output schemas. - Added canonical replay, cross-language, and Codex question fixtures. - Added accepted cases for additive optional fields and a rejected case for an unsupported required protocol version. - Added a deterministic manifest with SHA-256 digests for every schema and fixture. - Added package-local schema-instance, schema-reference, compatibility, question-ID, conformance-pair, and drift checks. - Added a private workspace package with no public exports and no production runtime behavior. - Added the package manifest to the Docker dependency-stage inventory required for every workspace package. This does not copy or build runner runtime code into the production image. - Kept the provider descriptor and question fixture Codex-only. No deferred provider package or dependency is present. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` passed with Node 24.19.0 and pnpm 9.15.4. No lockfile change is committed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:protocol` passed with 8 tests. - The committed AJV 2020-12 gate accepted every canonical v1 replay, question, and cross-language conformance fixture. It rejected the required v2 fixture, a replay fixture with a missing required command ID, and conformance output with a missing session ID. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed and ran the protocol manifest drift check. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs` passed. - `git diff --check` passed. - The delta against its declared base is 38 files. - `pnpm test:run` completed with 4,687 passing tests, 19 skipped tests, and 29 failures across 9 unchanged server files. The failures reproduce macOS path aliases, local listener probes, workspace-runtime assumptions, and one connection-retry timeout. No changed-file test failed. Linux CI must pass before this pull request is ready. - `pnpm check:tokens` reports existing personal-name references outside this pull request. A scoped scan of `packages/paperclip-runner` found no secret-like values, internal references, or deferred-provider names. - PR #12084 was squash-merged, and this branch was rebased onto that merge and retargeted to `master`. The first master-base policy run correctly caught the missing Docker dependency-stage manifest copy; commit `4fa1ea7c` fixes that gate, and the complete Linux matrix is green. - Serialized server shard 1 initially hit an unchanged heartbeat test-harness timeout and a later assertion in the same file. Its isolated rerun passed in 3m57s. All other shards passed on their first attempt. - Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no blocking failure. Both earlier actionable validation threads are resolved, and no review thread remains open. ## Risks Low production risk. The package is private and has no exports, server adapter, endpoint, or process. AJV is a package-only development dependency that the server workspace already uses. The main risk is contract churn before the TypeScript and Rust consumers land. The generated manifest and compatibility fixtures make that churn explicit. I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This change defines a contract for planned control-plane work and does not add overlapping product behavior. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 was used. The exact serving model ID and context size were not exposed. The model used high reasoning, repository tools, GitHub tools, and local code execution. ## 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |