PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-12 18:06:11 +02:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
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	2026-08-31 10:43:34 -05:00
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	2026-08-30 22:09:03 -05:00
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>	2026-08-24 09:59:03 -05:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

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

2026-08-31 10:43:34 -05:00

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

2026-08-30 22:09:03 -05:00

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>

2026-08-24 09:59:03 -05:00