mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-09 16:35:27 +02:00
codex/opencode-pre-routing-skill
5
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
7ed122911b |
Add end-to-end session goals to Paperclip Runner
Add capability-aware slash-goal controls, durable provider goal state, PRP v2 negotiation, autonomous goal execution, and safe local session recovery. Integrate with current master, preserve provider session identity, and verify the browser goal/chat/replacement/clear workflow and unsupported-agent rejection. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
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
|
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
|
b1cd261212 |
feat(runner): normalize provider event contracts (#12350)
## Thinking Path > - The runner already persists PRP events, but provider-native activity needs one bounded, provider-neutral vocabulary before additional providers can be added safely. > - The protocol catalog must describe capabilities without enabling or authorizing a provider. > - Provider normalization must not require an ACPX runtime dependency merely to compile the shared event layer. > - This pull request adds the event contract and pure normalizers only; provider transports and production selection remain unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This is the first follow-up stacked on #12321. Codex, OpenCode, and ACP runtimes expose different activity shapes. Without canonical normalization, downstream task threads and traces would need provider-specific branching and could retain unbounded or unsafe payloads. ## What Changed - Expand the PRP provider descriptor and canonical activity event families. - Add bounded Codex, OpenCode, and ACP event normalizers for plans, tools, research, delegation, artifacts, review, safety, waits, and notices. - Preserve strict schema validation and regenerate the checked-in schema bundle and manifest. - Use a structural ACP event input so the provider-neutral layer does not introduce or authorize an ACPX runtime dependency. - Export the provider-event contract from the existing package root. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` — 11 files and 88 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `git diff --check` - The local full repository runner reached unrelated macOS workspace-path fixture failures; the affected runner suites pass and the repository CI shards are the handoff authority. - Diff against the declared base: 8 files. ## Compatibility Boundary - No provider transport, adapter, server route, feature flag, or runtime selection changes. - Catalog presence does not authorize discovery or execution. - Existing Codex execution continues through its current path. - No dependency, migration, workflow, or lockfile change. ## Risks The main risk is accepting malformed or unbounded provider payloads. Schema validation remains fail-closed, text/output fields are bounded and redacted, unsafe paths and URLs are discarded, and representative variants for every declared event family are covered by tests. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 family. The client does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## 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 relevant template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal task identifier - [x] I have run the affected local tests and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated the compatibility notes for this change - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open actionable comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
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> |