2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Dotta	af8439a70b	feat(runner): restore direct live eval campaigns and reports (#12909) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Runner executes agents through native and managed provider drivers. > - The direct live eval layer had drifted from the current Runner contracts. > - The old local workflow did not provide a complete parallel campaign or durable report history. > - The Runner also needed current native OpenCode and OpenRouter qualification. > - This pull request restores the direct campaign, corrects the runtime gaps that the campaign found, and adds safe hosted Evalbook history. > - The benefit is repeatable model comparison against an immutable Runner and eval source revision. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11297 Refs #11634 **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves the direct live `paperclip-runner` eval workflow, provider execution contract, and static Evalbook reporting path. **Current behavior** The direct evals do not have one maintained full campaign on current `master`. OpenCode has no qualified multi-model OpenRouter roster. Parallel provider bursts can compact committed events before the transport observes them. Local reports do not have a separate safe S3 history index. **Proposed behavior** Run one immutable roster-plus-case matrix. Use the shared paid AWS runner fleet. Keep raw artifacts access-controlled. Publish a sanitized canonical Evalbook report under the separate `runner-protocol-evals` S3 prefix. Keep immutable campaign directories plus root history, latest, and latest-green pointers. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can compare native Codex, native OpenCode, ACPX, Claude Managed, and AWS AgentCore behavior over time. They can inspect failures without mixing this direct protocol layer with browser full-stack E2E. **Breaking changes** None. The new workflow and S3 prefix are additive. The existing Runner full-stack E2E workflow and report remain separate. ## What Changed - Added a trusted two-shard direct live workflow for up to 393 roster-plus-case cells. - Reused the numeric actor allowlist, protected paid environment, and RunsOn fleet controls from Runner full-stack E2E. - Added immutable Runner and eval revision resolution, exact credential boundaries, bounded retries, and cost ceilings. - Added a public report projection that removes sessions, transcripts, tool payloads, state, traces, raw failures, remote profile identities, and credential-shaped values. - Added additive S3 history under `runner-protocol-evals`, with immutable campaigns and mutable root index pointers. - Added native OpenCode model injection and current OpenRouter pricing contracts. - Fixed direct eval completion, workflow execution, semantic discovery, warm-attach state reset, executable binding, and event-burst handling. - Kept Runner browser full-stack E2E behavior and publication separate. - Documented local and hosted direct eval operation. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:runner-protocol-eval-publish` — 15 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner build:typescript` — passed. - `actionlint .github/workflows/runner-protocol-live-evals.yml .github/workflows/runner-full-stack-e2e.yml` — passed. - Local current matrix at the revision in [paperclip-evals#17](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/17) — 323 cells across 10 enabled configurations completed. - Final local current matrix — 269 passed, 11 behavior failures, and 43 expected macOS-only ACPX platform failures. - Targeted Runner checks — 13/13 eval-session tests, 15/15 publisher/security tests, and package typecheck passed; complete PR CI is green, including all browser E2E shards. ## Risks - Paid live campaigns can consume provider budget. Actor authorization, exact per-cell ceilings, protected environments, and explicit schedule enablement bound this risk. - Public reports can leak provider data. The workflow publishes only a separately projected report and validates every file before upload. - The new workflow cannot publish until it is present on the default branch. This pull request does not change the existing `runner-full-stack-e2e` publication path. - The campaign is large. It uses two GitHub matrices and caps combined concurrency at the shared fleet limit. > 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 on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed. The model used reasoning, code editing, browser inspection, repository tools, and live provider 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 - [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	2026-09-05 20:18:11 -05:00
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	2026-09-01 05:19:47 -05:00