2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Dotta	fdf8c8464d	feat(runner): add managed provider backends (#12699) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Paperclip Runner provides durable, provider-neutral agent execution. > - The current stack supports qualified local providers but omits the managed provider paths from the integration branch. > - Claude Managed Agents and AWS AgentCore need explicit profile qualification, durable recovery, usage accounting, and cleanup controls. > - This pull request adds those managed backends as the third part of the Runner parity stack. > - The benefit is managed execution without weakening the default-off Runner rollout gate. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: Runner, server orchestration, database profiles, CLI, and adapter configuration UI. **Problem or motivation** The current Runner stack cannot select or execute the managed Claude Agents API or AWS Bedrock AgentCore Harness backends. It also lacks qualified profile storage and recovery checks for those remote resources. **Proposed solution** Add qualified managed and remote profiles, API and CLI management, exact provider selection, durable lifecycle handling, cumulative usage accounting, bounded cleanup, and retention acknowledgement. Keep `enableNativeRunner` default-off. **Alternatives considered** A direct copy of the old integration branch was rejected because its provider contracts, model values, credential flow, and migration history no longer match the current base. A single large parity pull request was also rejected because stacked review keeps each subsystem bounded. **Roadmap alignment** This continues the existing Runner architecture and rollout work. It does not introduce a separate execution system. **Additional context** This pull request is based on the merged #12691 and #12685 stack. It also closes the delayed security-review findings reported on #12691 by binding qualified ACPX and OpenCode launch artifacts to the bytes actually executed. A GitHub search for managed agent, AgentCore, and Claude managed work found no duplicate public issue or pull request. ## What Changed - Add Claude Managed Agents and AWS AgentCore provider executors to runnerd. - Add qualified managed and remote profile storage, routes, OpenAPI contracts, CLI commands, and migration 0237. - Validate profile ownership, enabled state, exact qualified revision, model, agent version, and secret binding before persistence and recovery. - Persist durable provider session and owned skill state for restart-safe cleanup. - Reconcile uncertain create responses and delete remote sessions before owned skills. - Track cumulative provider usage and enforce positive session spend caps. - Recover interrupted AgentCore usage at the next turn boundary by charging the prior invocation ceiling exactly once; keep the session gated until an explicit monotonic budget raise. - Isolate AgentCore AWS configuration from host profiles and credential-process/SSO configuration while preserving workload identity. - Require OpenCode 1.18.17 and fixed build-owned provider-pack artifact paths; remove the ambient executable override. - Snapshot and content-verify ACPX and OpenCode commands, scripts, and provider executables before launch. Linux executes sealed inherited descriptors; macOS uses authenticated private snapshots with retry-safe rematerialization at the spawn boundary. - Persist canonical ACPX and OpenCode launch-profile digests, reject drift across fresh recovery, and make recovery failures sticky. - Close and journal unsafe ACPX active-turn recovery before any provider bootstrap or reconnect. - Add managed provider fields to the Runner configuration UI and permission projection. - Preserve the default-off `enableNativeRunner` experimental flag. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - Focused managed server, database, CLI, Runner TypeScript, Rust, Claude, AgentCore, ACPX, OpenCode, process-supervisor, and durable-recovery tests passed. - `cargo test -p paperclip-runner-core --lib --locked` (160 tests) - `cargo check --workspace --all-targets --locked` - Native Codex integration tests passed (60 tests); native provider tests passed (7 tests); server native-runtime tests passed (87 tests). - Verified-launch replacement, nested-spawn retry, exact-version, profile-drift, sticky-failure, and no-bootstrap active-recovery tests passed. - `git diff --check` - The PR changes 91 files. `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged. The Rust workspace lockfile adds the approved `rustix` dependency used for safe descriptor handling while `#![forbid(unsafe_code)]` remains enabled. ## Risks - The provider APIs can change while they are in beta. Exact qualification and fail-closed recovery checks limit drift. - Remote cleanup can fail after a partial create. Durable ownership inventories and retry-safe deletion preserve recovery state. - Migration 0237 adds profile tables. The generated migration and snapshot pass the repository migration checks. - Managed execution can incur provider cost. Positive default spend caps and explicit retention acknowledgement limit accidental use. - An interrupted AgentCore invocation without final metadata is conservatively charged to its active session ceiling. This can overstate cost, but cannot undercount it; later work requires an explicit budget increase. - Linux qualified launches use sealed memory descriptors. macOS lacks executable-descriptor APIs, so the runner uses owner-only private snapshots and minimizes linked-path lifetime; hostile same-UID processes remain outside the documented local-host trust boundary. - The global Runner feature remains default-off. > 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 tool use, code execution, and subagent 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 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	2026-09-02 00:48:30 -05:00
Dotta	41bf5cafa1	docs(runner): define architecture and compatibility (#12084) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent execution currently uses direct adapters inside the server process. > - The proposed Paperclip Runner adds a separate process and a new protocol boundary. > - This boundary needs clear trust, recovery, rollout, and compatibility rules before code lands. > - Large runner changes are difficult to review as one pull request. > - This pull request defines the first small boundary for the runner series. > - The benefit is a stable design contract for later implementation pull requests. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** The repository does not have a concise architecture decision or compatibility contract for Paperclip Runner. **What's wrong?** The available runner design material is too large for normal review. It mixes architecture, implementation history, test evidence, and deferred work. Reviewers need a short statement of the process boundary, trust model, rollout behavior, and direct-adapter compatibility rules. **Suggested fix** Add one architecture decision record and one compatibility document. Keep implementation details and campaign evidence out of this pull request. Related public work: Refs #11041, #11297, #11634, #11639, #11640, and #11962. This pull request is the first small replacement in the new review series for #11962. ## What Changed - Added an architecture decision for the runner process, PRP v1 transport, semantic tools, durable recovery, and additive server integration. - Added a compatibility and rollout contract for the default-off adapter, existing direct adapters, persisted native runs, and the task page. - Defined the initial package and provider limits. The first production provider is Codex only. - Defined acceptance checks for later implementation pull requests. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` passed with Node 24.19.0 and pnpm 9.15.4. - `pnpm check:node-version` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - The pull request changes 2 files. - `pnpm test:run` completed with 4,686 passing tests and 30 failures in unchanged master paths. The failures reproduce macOS path aliases, invalid generated port values, and local listener behavior. This documentation-only change does not touch those paths. Linux CI must pass before this pull request is ready. - All applicable GitHub Actions and security scans passed. The Storybook visual job skipped because this documentation-only change does not match its paths. - Greptile completed at 5/5 with no actionable comments. ## Risks Low implementation risk. This pull request changes documentation only. A later implementation can still diverge from the contract. Each later pull request must prove its behavior against these compatibility rules. I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This design supports the governed tool and control-plane direction. It does not add an overlapping user feature. ## 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 - [ ] 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	2026-08-24 09:30:47 -05:00