mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-09 16:35:27 +02:00
codex/plugin-task-execution
5
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
38d8f37172 |
fix(build): enforce Node 24 across Paperclip (#11792)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip runs across the CLI, server, adapters, plugins, CI, and container images. > - These surfaces declared different Node.js versions from 20 through 24. > - A newer `@types/node` major can expose APIs that the supported runtime does not provide. > - Node.js 20 is no longer a suitable project baseline, and Node.js 24 is the current LTS line. > - This pull request sets Node.js 24.11.0 as one repository-wide baseline, adds a drift check, and gives users actionable startup guidance when their runtime is too old. > - The benefit is one clear runtime contract for development, release, installation, and published packages. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #2734 Refs #11727 Refs #739 ## What Changed - Require Node.js 24.11.0 or newer in all 42 package manifests and runtime checks. - Use Node.js 24 in GitHub Actions, Docker images, smoke images, sandbox setup, portable installs, and esbuild targets. - Align every direct `@types/node` declaration on `^24.0.0`. - Prevent Dependabot from opening major `@types/node` upgrades without a matching runtime decision. - Add `.nvmrc` and a CI policy check for Node version drift. - Update ACP version gates, tests, and user documentation for the new minimum. - Print a non-blocking warning on CLI and server startup when Node is unsupported, with remediation through a version manager or the documented downloaded `install.sh` workflow. - Deduplicate that warning when `paperclipai run` boots the CLI and server in the same process. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-node-version-policy.mjs` - `node --check scripts/check-node-version-policy.mjs` - `node --check cli/esbuild.config.mjs` - `node --check scripts/generate-npm-package-json.mjs` - `bash -n scripts/install.sh scripts/test-install-sh-docker.sh scripts/e2e-install-lifecycle.sh` - Parsed all 42 package manifests and confirmed `engines.node` is `>=24.11.0`. - `git diff --check` - `vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-install-command.test.ts` passed with 3 tests. - `vitest run cli/src/node-version.test.ts` passed with 4 tests. - Directly exercised the shared warning helper for unsupported-version messaging and same-process deduplication. - The focused exe.dev suite could not resolve the locally unbuilt plugin SDK from this isolated worktree. A full offline workspace install was also blocked because the package-manager signature verifier requires registry access. The full suite was not run locally; draft CI performs a clean install and evaluates the wider impact. ## Risks - This is a breaking runtime change for users, plugins, and deployments that still use Node.js 20 or 22. - Published workspace packages will now produce an engine warning or failure in strict package managers on older Node.js releases. - Node.js 24 can reveal dependency, native module, Playwright, or agent CLI compatibility issues in CI. - The bootstrap installer now installs Node.js 24 when the current runtime is older than 24.11.0. - The portable sandbox fallback is pinned to Node.js 24.11.0 and depends on that upstream tarball remaining available. - Unsupported runtimes continue booting after a warning, so a later incompatibility can still fail at its point of use. - The CLI and server share the warning policy through the published `@paperclipai/shared` package; packaging checks must keep that subpath export available. - This PR does not commit `pnpm-lock.yaml` because repository policy assigns lockfile generation to CI. > 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 deployment ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Reasoning, repository tools, shell execution, and GitHub tools 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 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> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
1951c80237 |
feat(cli): surface plugin install target host + add plugin target (#8575)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The CLI (`paperclipai plugin ...`) installs and manages plugins against a Paperclip server resolved from `--api-base` / `PAPERCLIP_API_URL` / the active profile / an inferred default > - During local plugin development you can have more than one Paperclip running (a released host plus a branch build on another port), and nothing told you *which* instance a command actually talked to > - So a plugin that depends on a route or response field only present on a feature branch could be silently installed/tested against a stale host, returning `API route not found`, and look broken when the real problem was the test target > - This pull request makes the install target explicit: it probes `GET /api/health` and prints the resolved API URL + server status/version/mode/exposure before installing, and adds a `plugin target` command plus docs for running and verifying against a branch service > - The benefit is that local plugin authors can confirm they are exercising the runtime they intend to, instead of debugging phantom plugin bugs caused by hitting the wrong server ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists, so the underlying problem is described inline following the feature-request template. **Problem or motivation** Local plugin development assumes a single Paperclip on `http://127.0.0.1:3100`. When a plugin depends on server code that only exists on a feature branch (a new scoped route, a new response field, a new managed-resource capability), installing it into a long-lived host still on older code makes the route/field missing there. The plugin falls back or errors and *looks* broken, when the real cause is that it was tested against the wrong runtime. The CLI already let you point at any server, but it never surfaced which server you ended up on — so the mistake was invisible. **Proposed solution** Make the install target explicit. Before `plugin install` runs, probe `GET /api/health` and print the resolved API URL plus server status/version/deploymentMode/exposure, so the developer can confirm which Paperclip they are installing into. Add a standalone `plugin target` command to inspect the target without installing, a `--no-verify-target` escape hatch, and docs covering how to run a branch service on its own port and verify a branch route end-to-end. **Alternatives considered** - Do nothing and rely on the existing `--api-base` / `PAPERCLIP_API_URL` resolution — rejected because the gap was never the inability to point at a branch server, it was the lack of feedback about which server was actually hit. - Fail the install when the target looks stale — rejected as too aggressive; the probe is advisory and degrades gracefully when health details are not exposed or the server is unreachable. ## Dedup Search - [x] I searched the open and recently closed GitHub PRs for similar or duplicate PRs — this is not a duplicate ## What Changed - Add `probeTargetDiagnostics` / `formatTargetDiagnostics` helpers (`cli/src/commands/client/plugin.ts`) that read `GET /api/health` and report the resolved API URL plus server `status` / `version` / `deploymentMode` / `deploymentExposure`. - `plugin install` now prints these target diagnostics before installing, so you can confirm which instance you are installing into. Skippable with `--no-verify-target`. - `plugin install --json` keeps its original flat `PluginRecord` shape (top-level `id` / `pluginKey` / `version` / `status` are unchanged); when the target was probed it gains an additional top-level `target` field. Existing automation that reads the plugin fields keeps working. - Add a standalone `paperclipai plugin target` command to inspect the install target without installing anything. - Update `doc/plugins/LOCAL_PLUGIN_DEVELOPMENT.md`: how the CLI resolves its target, how to run a branch service on its own port and point the CLI at it explicitly, an end-to-end check that the branch route is actually served, and a troubleshooting entry for the stale-target symptom. - Unit tests for the diagnostics helpers (reachable + unreachable probe, and both render paths). ## Verification - `npx vitest run cli/src/__tests__/plugin-init.test.ts` — 10/10 pass (covers `probeTargetDiagnostics` success/failure and `formatTargetDiagnostics` rendering). - CLI typecheck (`tsc --noEmit` in `cli/`) — clean. - Manual: with a server running, `paperclipai plugin target` prints `Target Paperclip: <url>` and the health line; `plugin install` prints the same block before installing and `--no-verify-target` skips it. ## Risks Low risk. The probe is read-only (`GET /api/health`) and runs before install; if the server does not expose details it degrades to `ok (no details exposed)`, and an unreachable target prints a remediation hint rather than failing the command. The `--json` output keeps its original flat shape, so existing scripts are unaffected. No server or schema changes. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`), extended thinking + tool use, via Claude Code. |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d47b4da655 |
Auto-build bundled plugins on install (#8254)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Plugins extend the server with worker/UI surfaces, and bundled local plugins under `packages/plugins/**` ship as TS source — their compiled `dist/` is not checked in > - On a fresh checkout, installing a bundled local plugin via the in-app **Install** button failed because `paperclipPlugin.manifest` points at `./dist/manifest.js`, which does not exist until the package is built > - The error surfaces as `Package … does not appear to be a Paperclip plugin (no manifest found)`, which is misleading — the manifest is real, the dist is just missing — and forces every contributor to run `pnpm --filter … build` by hand before the bundled-plugin installer works at all > - This pull request teaches the install path to detect that case and run the package's build (plus standalone runtime bootstrap for plugins outside the root workspace) before manifest resolution, gated by a kill switch and a bounded timeout > - The benefit is bundled plugins like `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff` install in one click on a fresh checkout, with a clear error message and manual fallback when the autobuild itself fails ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing GitHub issue. Underlying bug, following the bug-report template: **What happened?** Installing a bundled local plugin from a fresh checkout fails with `Package @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff at packages/plugins/plugin-workspace-diff does not appear to be a Paperclip plugin (no manifest found)`. The manifest is declared in `package.json` (`paperclipPlugin.manifest = ./dist/manifest.js`) but `dist/` is not built/committed, so the loader cannot find it. **Expected behavior** Clicking **Install** on a bundled plugin builds it if needed and registers it, without a manual build step. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Fresh checkout of `master` 2. Start the server, open Plugin Manager 3. Click **Install** next to `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff` 4. Observe the "no manifest found" failure **Scope** Same failure mode affects every bundled plugin without a checked-in `dist/` (`plugin-llm-wiki`, examples, sandbox-provider plugins, etc.). ## What Changed - `server/src/services/plugin-loader.ts`: added `ensureLocalPluginBuilt(packageRoot, pkgJson)` — when the package lives under `packages/plugins/**` and its declared paperclipPlugin entrypoints (`manifest`, `worker`, `ui`) are missing, run `pnpm --filter <name> build` (and a standalone runtime-deps bootstrap for plugins outside the root pnpm workspace) before manifest resolution - `server/src/routes/plugins.ts`: invoke the autobuild from the local-path install path; surface a `hasBuiltEntrypoints` boolean on the `AvailableBundledPlugin` listing; invalidate the bundled-plugins cache after a successful install so a freshly built plugin no longer reports `hasBuiltEntrypoints: false` - `ui/src/api/plugins.ts` + `ui/src/pages/PluginManager.tsx`: type and consume `hasBuiltEntrypoints` so the installer can show that an autobuild will run on install - `server/src/__tests__/plugin-install-autobuild.test.ts`: new suite — 9 tests covering success, kill-switch, build failure, timeout, manifest still missing after build, standalone variant, and the existing `plugin-routes-authz` listing assertion - `doc/plugins/LOCAL_PLUGIN_DEVELOPMENT.md`: documents the autobuild, the `PAPERCLIP_DISABLE_PLUGIN_AUTOBUILD=1` kill switch, and the manual fallback command - Detect the autobuild timeout via the child-process `killed` flag rather than string-matching the error message, so the "after timing out" context is actually emitted Knobs: - `PAPERCLIP_DISABLE_PLUGIN_AUTOBUILD=1` — skip autobuild entirely; restore prior behavior - Build timeout: 120s, with a clear error that points at the manual `pnpm --filter <name> build` recovery command ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/plugin-install-autobuild.test.ts src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts` → 44/44 pass - End-to-end on a clean checkout: `rm -rf packages/plugins/plugin-workspace-diff/dist`, invoke `ensureLocalPluginBuilt()` against the real package, all declared entrypoints (`dist/manifest.js`, `dist/worker.js`, `dist/ui/index.js`) regenerated. The original `no manifest found` symptom no longer reproduces. ## Risks Low. The autobuild only fires when (a) the package sits under `packages/plugins/**`, (b) at least one declared entrypoint is missing, and (c) the kill switch is not set. In a packaged production server the `packages/plugins/**` path does not exist on disk, so the helper short-circuits and never shells out to `pnpm`. Failures from the spawned build are surfaced as an install error with the exact manual command to retry, so the worst-case is the same UX as before plus a clearer message. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.7 (claude-opus-4-7), extended thinking enabled, tool use (filesystem + bash). ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [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
|
8f45d12447 |
docs: update plugin authoring guide for managed resources (#6261)
## Thinking Path
<!--
Required. Trace your reasoning from the top of the project down to this
specific change. Start with what Paperclip is, then narrow through the
subsystem, the problem, and why this PR exists. Use blockquote style.
Aim for 5-8 steps. See CONTRIBUTING.md for full examples.
-->
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - The plugin system is how optional capabilities extend the control
plane without adding hidden core behavior.
> - Plugin authors need accurate guidance for the current managed
capabilities model.
> - The existing docs under-described managed skills and the
routine-first pattern for durable plugin automation.
> - Content-oriented plugins such as LLM Wiki should model recurring
work with visible managed agents, projects, routines, and skills.
> - This pull request aligns the authoring guide, local development
guide, and longer plugin spec with that model.
> - The benefit is clearer plugin guidance that preserves Paperclip
visibility, budgets, pause controls, and audit trails.
## What Changed
<!-- Bullet list of concrete changes. One bullet per logical unit. -->
- Documented plugin-managed skills alongside managed agents, projects,
and routines.
- Added guidance for content-oriented plugins to use managed projects,
agents, skills, and routines instead of private daemon-like state.
- Updated the manifest/spec examples and capability lists for current
plugin-managed surfaces.
- Clarified when to use managed routines instead of plugin runtime jobs
for board-visible recurring work.
- Added a short local plugin development note pointing authors toward
routine-first automation.
- Addressed Greptile docs feedback by marking top-level `launchers` as
legacy and removing a redundant `slug` from the managed skill example.
## Verification
<!--
How can a reviewer confirm this works? Include test commands, manual
steps, or both. For UI changes, include before/after screenshots.
-->
- `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD`
- Reviewed `ROADMAP.md`; this is docs alignment for the completed plugin
system milestone and does not add roadmap-level core feature work.
- Greptile Review: success on the latest head; `3 files reviewed, 0
comments added` after follow-up fixes.
- GitHub PR checks are green on the latest head, including Build,
Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, serialized server suites,
e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, Snyk, and aggregate `verify`.
## Risks
<!--
What could go wrong? Mention migration safety, breaking changes,
behavioral shifts, or "Low risk" if genuinely minor.
-->
- Low risk: documentation-only changes.
- Main risk is documentation drift if the plugin API changes again
before these docs are reviewed.
> 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
<!--
Required. Specify which AI model was used to produce or assist with
this change. Be as descriptive as possible - include:
• Provider and model name (e.g., Claude, GPT, Gemini, Codex)
• Exact model ID or version (e.g., claude-opus-4-6,
gpt-4-turbo-2024-04-09)
• Context window size if relevant (e.g., 1M context)
• Reasoning/thinking mode if applicable (e.g., extended thinking,
chain-of-thought)
• Any other relevant capability details (e.g., tool use, code execution)
If no AI model was used, write "None — human-authored".
-->
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with shell and GitHub connector 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b947a7d76c |
[codex] Improve local plugin development workflow (#5821)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI-agent companies. > - Plugins are the extension point for adding capabilities without expanding the core product surface. > - Local plugin development needed a tighter CLI-first loop so plugin authors can scaffold, run, install, inspect, and reload plugins without reaching into internal package paths. > - The server plugin install path also needed local-path handling that keeps plugin identity, dashboard routes, and development watchers coherent. > - This pull request adds the CLI scaffold/install workflow, fixes the server and SDK edge cases that blocked that loop, and updates the agent-facing plugin creation skill and docs. > - The benefit is that contributors can develop plugins from local folders with a documented, repeatable happy path. ## What Changed - Added `paperclipai plugin init` coverage and CLI wiring for local plugin scaffolding. - Improved local plugin install handling, plugin key route resolution, dashboard capability behavior, and dev watcher startup/reload behavior. - Fixed plugin SDK worker entrypoint validation for symlinked package layouts. - Added targeted tests for plugin init, server plugin authz/watcher behavior, SDK worker host validation, and the authoring smoke example. - Added a short local plugin development guide and refreshed the plugin authoring guide plus `paperclip-create-plugin` skill instructions. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/create-paperclip-plugin typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project paperclipai cli/src/__tests__/plugin-init.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/plugin-sdk packages/plugins/sdk/tests/worker-rpc-host.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/plugin-dev-watcher.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm --dir packages/plugins/examples/plugin-authoring-smoke-example test` - Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the PR diff. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches plugin install routing, CLI command behavior, and the local development watcher. - Local path plugin installs execute trusted local code by design; the new docs call out that trust boundary. - No database migrations are included. > 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 coding agent, tool-enabled local shell and git workflow, medium reasoning effort. Context window details were not exposed in this runtime. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge UI screenshots: not applicable; this PR changes CLI/server/plugin docs and tests, not board UI rendering. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |