Commit Graph
10 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 4.8 04bf7a6ab5 feat(observability): instrument stage.sync host steps and home the agent process span (#11301)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - It runs each agent in a remote sandbox and emits OpenTelemetry spans
for the sandbox bring-up and the run.
> - A real trace showed two gaps. `stage.sync` had about 3 seconds of
unattributed host work before its `pack` span. The persistent agent
process showed a `sandbox.exec` span that outlived its parent by about
50 seconds.
> - The gaps hide real cost and make the trace read as a sequencing bug,
so an operator cannot see where startup time goes.
> - This pull request wraps the two pre-`pack` host steps in their own
spans. It also homes the long-lived process in a run-scoped
`sandbox.agentProcess` span.
> - The benefit is that startup time is fully attributed and the process
reads as a resource that overlaps the turn, not a child that outlives
its parent.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

No public issue exists. This is an enhancement to existing telemetry. It
is described inline below, following
`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml`. Prior related work: the merged
PR #10999 added the run-time wrapper spans and the telemetry
data-contract section this PR extends.

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

The sandbox bring-up and run OpenTelemetry trace. It closes two
attribution gaps in that trace.

**Subsystem affected**

Observability for sandbox execution. The code lives in
`packages/adapter-utils`. The span contract lives in
`packages/shared/src/telemetry`.

**Current behavior**

`stage.sync` opens a `pack` span, but the git enumeration and the
baseline content-hash walk that run before `pack` have no span, so about
3 seconds read as a gap. On the streamed process-session path the agent
process launches fire-and-forget inside the ~2.3 second
`bridge.process-session` bring-up step, so its `sandbox.exec` span
parents to that step and then runs about 50 seconds. The child dangles
past its parent and overlaps `agent.turn`.

**Proposed behavior**

Wrap the two pre-`pack` host operations in `snapshot.git` and
`snapshot.baseline` spans under `stage.sync`. Wrap the streamed launch
in a run-scoped `sandbox.agentProcess` span that parents to the live run
root (`task.run` at launch).

**Reason and benefit**

Startup time is fully attributed. The long-lived process reads as a
resource that overlaps the sibling `agent.turn`, not a mis-parented
child.

**Breaking changes**

None. The spans are opt-in and export only when an OTLP endpoint is
configured. The span seam is a no-op when no runner is injected. No
first-party telemetry event changes.

## What Changed

- `sandbox-managed-runtime.ts`: add `snapshot.git` and
`snapshot.baseline` spans around the git enumeration and the baseline
content-hash walk, nested under `stage.sync`, through a shared
`runStepSpan` helper that `pack` now also uses.
- `execution-target.ts`: wrap the fire-and-forget streamed launch in a
run-rooted `sandbox.agentProcess` span, so it parents to the live run
root and holds the inner `sandbox.exec`. The `.then`/`.catch` chain
became try/catch inside the span callback, with identical
frame-ingestion behavior.
- `packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md`: update the span table and
the parenting prose. Add `snapshot.git`, `snapshot.baseline`, `pack`,
and `sandbox.agentProcess`, and document the intended
`sandbox.agentProcess` / `agent.turn` overlap.
- Tests: update the executor span-tree test (`childNames` and parent
assertions), update the `sandbox-managed-runtime` span-set and nesting
tests, and add two `execution-target-sandbox` tests (the launch opens
`sandbox.agentProcess`; it parents to the run root, not the bring-up
step).

## Verification

- Run `npx vitest run` on the three affected test files. Result: 174
tests pass. This includes the updated executor span-tree test and the
new `sandbox.agentProcess` open and parenting tests.
- Run `tsc --noEmit` in `packages/adapter-utils`. Result: no errors in
the changed source or test files.
- The full 37-test streamed process-session suite passes unchanged. This
confirms the try/catch restructure preserves frame delivery and
exit/error behavior.
- Pre-existing and unrelated to this PR (present on `master`): `tsc`
errors in `execute.ts` / `execute.test.ts` /
`remote-spawn-smoke.test.ts` (`onAgentStderr` / `spawnCwd`), and a
`check:forbidden-tokens` failure from internal `PAP-###` ids in
`ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx`. This PR does not
touch those files, and its own diff is token-clean.

## Risks

Low. The change adds instrumentation on the opt-in span path and does
not change control flow on the default path. The one production
restructure is the streamed launch, which stays fire-and-forget, so
bring-up does not block on it. Only the streamed path gains
`sandbox.agentProcess`; the legacy poll path launches the process
detached and has no host-side long-lived span to home.

## Model Used

Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), about 200K-token context,
agentic tool use through Claude Code. The trace was reviewed through the
Honeycomb MCP. The code was written and tested with the model.

## 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-12 16:06:05 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip 9ace548fd2 feat(observability): rename sandbox provider spans and add run-time wrapper spans (#10999)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip uses adapter and sandbox code to start agents and run
sandbox work
> - The current sandbox spans use mixed names and do not group related
run-time work
> - Mixed names make traces harder to read and compare across providers
> - This pull request renames provider spans, adds run-time wrapper
spans, and keeps the host allowlist closed
> - The benefit is clearer traces with the same sandbox behavior and
trust boundary

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

This improves OpenTelemetry span names and grouping for sandbox startup,
execution, callback relay, and agent session work.

**Subsystem affected**

Cross-cutting (multiple of the above): adapter utilities, sandbox
providers, shared telemetry documentation, and server instrumentation.

**Current behavior**

Sandbox provider spans use mixed names. Related run-time operations
expose inner `sandbox.exec` spans without a named wrapper span. The host
mapper uses a closed allowlist for provider span names.

**Proposed behavior**

Use descriptive provider-scoped span names. Add wrapper spans for agent
session input, agent session output polling, and callback relay. Keep
the host mapper allowlist closed and map unknown names to `other`.

**Reason and benefit**

Clear names make traces easier to read and reduce ambiguity during
sandbox operation analysis. Wrapper spans show the full operation while
preserving the inner execution spans.

**Breaking changes**

None. This change updates telemetry span names and grouping only. It
does not change sandbox behavior, endpoint behavior, or the host trust
boundary.

**Additional context**

Related prior work:
[#10758](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/10758).

## What Changed

- Rename Daytona provider sync and session spans with descriptive
provider-scoped names.
- Add three run-time wrapper spans for agent session input, output
polling, and callback relay.
- Add a shared span runner that preserves no-op behavior without a real
tracer.
- Keep the host mapper allowlist closed and map unknown names to
`other`.
- Update telemetry documentation and span-name tests.

## Verification

- Focused adapter-utils span tests pass for startup timing, callback
relay, and sandbox execution.
- Focused Daytona plugin span tests pass for renamed leaf spans and
session open or close spans.
- Focused server tests pass for host mapping and instrumentation.
- The stacked diff contains one commit on top of
`feat/daytona-persistent-session-model`.

## Risks

- Span names change for existing telemetry consumers.
- The wrapper spans add trace structure but do not change sandbox
execution.
- The host mapper keeps the existing closed allowlist and `other`
bucket.

> 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 GPT-5 (Codex agent); exact deployment revision and context window
are not exposed in this run; tool use and code execution 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] 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>
2026-08-06 22:31:15 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip 6a69a3d6b0 refactor(observability): stop writing detailed per-step timing to the run log (#10776)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip tracks agent work for the team.
> - The startup timing path already emits detailed spans.
> - The run log repeats the same detailed timing.
> - That makes the event larger than it needs to be.
> - This pull request removes the redundant per-step timing fields from
the run-log payload.
> - The benefit is a smaller log with the same detail still available in
traces.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

No public GitHub issue or open pull request matches this change. I
described the enhancement below.

**What existing behavior does this improve?**
`run.startup.step` event output.

**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting (multiple of the above)

**Current behavior**
`run.startup.step` writes `roundTrips`, `providerExecMs`,
`providerGetMs`, `createRuntimeMs`, and `ensureSessionMs`. The same
detail already exists in the spans.

**Proposed behavior**
`run.startup.step` keeps only `step`, `durationMs`, and `outcome`. The
heartbeat lifecycle timestamps stay unchanged.

**Reason and benefit**
This change removes redundant data from the run log. It keeps the useful
detail in trace spans. It also makes the payload smaller and easier to
read. The revert path stays clear because the removed data has one
producer chain.

**Breaking changes**
Yes. Consumers that read the removed fields must switch to span data or
the remaining event fields. The heartbeat lifecycle timestamps do not
change.

**Additional context**
I searched GitHub for related open PRs and issues. I found no match.

## What Changed

- Removed the redundant per-step timing fields from the run-log payload.
- Removed the now-dead producer chain that fed those fields.
- Kept the span-level timing data and the heartbeat lifecycle
timestamps.

## Verification

- `adapter-utils` typecheck clean
- `server` typecheck clean
- `startup-timing` suite: 30 passed
- `adapter-utils` `execute` suite: 99 passed
- `server` `environment-execution-target` suite: 21 passed

## Risks

- Consumers that still read the removed fields will need a code change.
- This is a one-way-door data removal for the run log.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use 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 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>
2026-08-03 15:58:21 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip af6b32d82a feat(observability): add provider OTel spans - cache-hit flag, plugin tracer, Daytona pack/transfer spans (#10764)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip uses pull requests to ship control-plane changes with
review and audit.
> - This change extends sandbox provider telemetry.
> - The first PR added startup and exec spans.
> - This PR adds provider spans for cache hits, plugin tracer flow, and
Daytona file sync steps.
> - The host must keep the trust boundary and reject unsafe span data.
> - The result is fuller OTel coverage with bounded labels and safe
parentage.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Problem or motivation**

Sandbox provider telemetry lacks an explicit cache-hit signal, plugin
span context, and file-sync pack and transfer spans.
The current proxy for a cache hit is fragile.
The plugin SDK also needs a safe tracer surface and a per-call parent
context.

**Proposed solution**

Add an explicit `cacheHit` flag from the Daytona sandbox handle lookup.
Expose `ctx.tracer` on the plugin context and pass a `traceparent`
string with each call.
Record provider spans on the host with allowlist clamping and capability
checks.
Wrap Daytona file sync pack and transfer steps in spans.

**Alternatives considered**

Keep the old `providerGetMs == 0` proxy.
Reject that path because the cache-hit decision belongs at the handle
lookup, not in a timing proxy.

The host stays the trust boundary for worker span data.
It clamps labels, rejects bad parent data, and gates the worker-to-host
span RPC by capability.
A security review completed before this PR opened.

## What Changed

- Added an explicit `cacheHit` flag from the Daytona sandbox handle
lookup.
- Added `ctx.tracer` on the plugin context and a `traceparent` field in
the per-call context.
- Added host-side span recording with attribute clamping and capability
checks.
- Wrapped Daytona file sync pack and transfer steps in spans.
- Added tests for the host trust boundary, the plugin tracer no-op path,
and the Daytona span paths.

## Verification

- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-daytona exec vitest run`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk exec vitest run`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
plugin-host-services environment-execution-target instrumentation
plugin-worker-manager`
- `tsc --noEmit` for server, plugin-sdk, and adapter-utils

## Risks

- Span data now crosses the worker boundary, so the host allowlist and
capability gate must stay strict.
- The `traceparent` path must stay valid and host-owned.
- Daytona file sync spans must not add new round trips.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, 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 searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked existing issues with `Fixes:` / `Closes:` /
`Refs:` or described the issue in the PR body
- [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 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>
2026-08-03 13:09:01 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip c09ea7112b feat(observability): add granular OpenTelemetry spans for sandbox startup and execution (#10758)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip coordinates AI agent work and records execution data.
> - The sandbox startup path and the host-to-sandbox execution path need
clearer OpenTelemetry spans.
> - The trace data now shows wait time, critical path data, and bounded
labels.
> - This pull request adds bounded spans and closed attribute helpers
for sandbox startup and execution.
> - The result is better trace data with low cardinality and no secret
leakage.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

- No public GitHub issue exists for this branch.
- Related PR: #10536
- This PR extends the sandbox OpenTelemetry work with exec spans, root
timing, and bounded labels.

## What Changed

- Added a closed span-attribute contract for sandbox startup data.
- Added a bounded label helper for command and region values.
- Threaded the active step context into the execution path.
- Added a `sandbox.exec` span with true timestamps and bounded
attributes.
- Added skipped-step and root-span timing data with low-cardinality
context.
- Moved handshake sub-times and bridge batch data onto spans.

## Verification

- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils run typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server run typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec vitest run`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
environment-execution-target`
- `git log --oneline
origin/master..origin/feat/sandbox-startup-otel-spans`
- `git diff origin/master...origin/feat/sandbox-startup-otel-spans
--stat`

## Risks

- Span attribute rules could still miss a future field if new code skips
the shared helper.
- Low-cardinality labels may hide some detail, but that is the intended
tradeoff.
- Tracing stays fail-open, so a missing tracer still hides data rather
than stopping work.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use enabled. The runtime did not expose the
context window size.

## 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] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

The current head still has one failing required check: `e2e`. The PR
stays unready for board handoff until that check passes.

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-08-03 10:13:19 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip 9f7565f4ce feat: activate OpenTelemetry spans on the sandbox start path (#10536)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip moves agent work through sandboxed execution and
control-plane services.
> - The sandbox start path now has a no-op span seam.
> - This change turns that seam on when OTLP export is configured.
> - It keeps the default path unchanged when export is off.
> - The result is structured startup traces with low-cardinality
attributes and explicit parent links.
> - The benefit is better observability without changing normal
behavior.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

No public GitHub issue exists for this change.

### Problem
The sandbox start path has a tracer seam, but it stays a no-op unless
the OTLP export path is active.

### Proposed solution
Enable the server tracer on sandbox bring-up, open a root span, parent
each startup boundary to that root, and keep the export path opt-in
behind `OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT`.

### Alternatives considered
- Keep the start path as a no-op. I rejected that path because it leaves
sandbox start opaque when OTLP export is already configured.
- Add broad attributes for commands and paths. I rejected that path
because the span allowlist must stay low-cardinality.

### Roadmap alignment
This follows the current OTel sandbox-start work and keeps the default
path unchanged.

## What Changed

- Add a root sandbox startup span and child spans for each named startup
boundary.
- Keep concurrent bridge spans parented to the root span.
- Inject the server tracer through the adapter deps without
OpenTelemetry imports in the engine.
- Attach host-received provider duration attributes only when the values
are finite.
- Keep span attributes inside the allowlist and keep command, path, id,
and error text out of span data.

## Verification

- The pushed branch already passed `pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/adapter-utils exec tsc --noEmit`.
- The pushed branch already passed `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/`.
- The pushed branch already passed `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
exec vitest run src/__tests__/environment-execution-target.test.ts
src/__tests__/instrumentation.test.ts`.
- The pushed branch already passed `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server
exec tsc --noEmit`.

## Risks

- OTel export changes trace volume when the endpoint is set.
- The allowlist limits trace detail, so new fields need care.
- The change stays no-op when OTLP export is off.

## Model Used

- OpenAI GPT-5, tool use 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 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
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
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>
2026-07-30 21:20:58 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip 24bbc0f57e docs: add telemetry marker workflow (#9543)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is an open-source agentic AI management platform that
ships anonymous usage telemetry to understand product health and
adoption.
> - The telemetry system has a generated contract
(`packages/shared/src/telemetry/generated/paperclip-telemetry.ts`) that
types every first-party event the product emits.
> - When a product change needs a new first-party event that is not yet
in the generated contract, contributors had no public workflow
explaining how to propose an event or later promote it into the contract
once accepted.
> - The gap leads to confusion at call sites: contributors either skip
tracking entirely or emit untyped events that bypass the privacy and
governance safeguards built into the contract.
> - This PR fills that gap by adding `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md` — a
public contributor guide that covers the full propose → promote
lifecycle: the `@ts-expect-error -- proposed-telemetry(...)` marker, the
canonical multi-line `track()` shape, the TS2578 expiry signal, and the
look-up-by-event-name promotion step.
> - `packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md` gains a cross-reference so
readers of the data-contract doc can find the workflow guide without
searching.
> - `README.md` gains a one-line pointer in the telemetry section so the
workflow is discoverable from the project entry point.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

No pre-existing public GitHub issue covers this doc gap. Inline
description:

**Problem:** Contributors adding product telemetry for events not yet in
the generated contract have no documented workflow. The
`@ts-expect-error -- proposed-telemetry(...)` pattern exists in the
codebase but is undocumented, leading to inconsistent usage and missing
adoption signals.

**Solution:** A new public guide (`doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`) documents
the marker format, the recommended multi-line `track()` shape that
preserves the TS2578 expiry signal, the dimension rules, and the
promotion checklist. Cross-references are added to
`packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md` and the top-level `README.md`.

No related open PRs found.

## What Changed

- **New file `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`** — public contributor guide
for the propose/promote lifecycle: marker format, canonical multi-line
example, TS2578 single-line trap, dimension rules, and step-by-step
promotion checklist.
- **`packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md`** — added one-line
cross-reference pointing at `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md` for proposed
events not yet in the generated contract.
- **`README.md`** — added one-line pointer in the telemetry section so
the new workflow guide is reachable from the top-level project entry.

## Verification

This is a docs-only change. Verification steps:

1. Open `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md` and confirm it contains:
   - The `^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9._:-]{1,63}$` event-name grammar.
- The exact `// @ts-expect-error -- proposed-telemetry(<issue>):
<rationale>` marker.
- The multi-line `client.track()` copy-paste example (directive on line
before event-name string).
- The explanation of the TS2578 single-line trap and the
look-up-by-event-name step.
   - The promotion checklist in the "Promote An Event" section.
2. Confirm `packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md` cross-references
`doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`.
3. Confirm the `README.md` telemetry section links to
`doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`.

## Risks

Low risk — docs-only change. No runtime behavior, schema, or existing
telemetry emission is affected. The risk is that the guidance could
diverge from the actual enforcement in the codebase over time; mitigated
by linking to the generated contract and keeping the doc in the same
repo.

## Model Used

Claude — `claude-sonnet-4-6` (Anthropic Claude Sonnet 4.6). Tool use
enabled. Extended context. Produced via the Paperclip agentic workflow
with `Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>`.

## 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>
2026-07-14 08:25:53 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip 90f85a7d11 Add telemetry proposal extractor (#9544)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - It emits telemetry events to understand product usage — registered
event names are gated by a generated `PAPERCLIP_EVENTS` registry so the
client only enqueues known, schema-approved events
> - When product teams want to instrument a new behaviour, they must
first register the event name — but schema registration is a
commit-and-release cycle, which creates friction in fast-moving product
iterations
> - A proposal lane is needed: let developers mark a `track()` call with
a typed `@ts-expect-error` proposal marker so the event name can be
reviewed and tracked in CI before the schema is formally registered
> - The existing client had no guard against unregistered event names,
so any call with an out-of-registry name (or a prototype-inherited key)
would silently enter the queue, state, and network flush path
> - This PR adds an `Object.hasOwn(PAPERCLIP_EVENTS, eventName)` guard
at the entry point of `track()` to swallow unregistered calls before any
side effects, adds `scripts/extract-proposed-events.mjs` to scan source
for proposal markers and emit a v2 JSON manifest with provenance and
rationale, and documents the complete proposal workflow
> - The benefit is that new instrumentation can be proposed and reviewed
in code without touching the registered schema, and tooling can surface
missing rationale before events graduate to stable

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

No existing GitHub issue covers this change. This PR introduces a new
feature.

**Feature motivation:** Paperclip's telemetry schema is intentionally
stable — registered event names are code-generated and gated. Product
engineers who want to instrument a new behaviour today must land a
schema change first, creating a two-step process that slows iteration. A
proposal lane lets developers write the instrumentation call ahead of
schema registration, protected by a compile-time `@ts-expect-error`
marker that an extractor script can surface for review. This PR
implements both the client-side safety gate and the extraction tooling.

Refs: #9518 (closed predecessor — docs-only; this PR supersedes it with
the full implementation)

## What Changed

- Added `Object.hasOwn(PAPERCLIP_EVENTS, eventName)` guard at the top of
`TelemetryClient.track()`: unregistered event names (including
prototype-inherited keys) are now swallowed before any state, queue, or
network operation
- Added `scripts/extract-proposed-events.mjs`: scans TypeScript source
for `@ts-expect-error -- proposed-telemetry(<issue>): <rationale>`
markers; emits a v2 JSON manifest per proposed event including name,
rationale, provenance (repo-relative file + line), and a
`rationale_missing` flag for CI enforcement
- Added `scripts/extract-proposed-events.test.mjs`: test suite covering
marker parsing, multi-line markers, path validation, out-of-repo
rejection, and the v2 schema output contract
- Added `doc/TELEMETRY_WORKFLOW.md`: documents the proposal workflow,
the canonical multi-line marker example, rationale requirements, and how
to graduate a proposed event to stable schema
- Updated `packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md`: added "Proposed
Events" section to the Telemetry Data Contract per the contributing
guide requirement for telemetry changes

## Verification

Run all of the following from the repo root:

```sh
# Extractor unit tests
node --test scripts/extract-proposed-events.test.mjs

# Telemetry client + types tests
pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts \
  src/telemetry/client.test.ts src/telemetry/client-types.test.ts \
  --reporter=verbose
# (run from packages/shared)

# Type-check
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck

# Smoke-run the extractor in local-test mode
node scripts/extract-proposed-events.mjs --ref local-test
```

All four commands pass locally.

## Risks

- **Silent drop on unregistered events:** The `Object.hasOwn` guard
fails closed — any event name not in `PAPERCLIP_EVENTS` is silently
dropped. If the generated registry is missing an event that was
previously tracked, those calls will be silently lost. Mitigation: the
extractor script surfaces proposed events that need registration; the
TypeScript type system already enforces `TelemetryEventName ⊆
PAPERCLIP_EVENTS` at compile time.
- **Extractor is read-only:** `extract-proposed-events.mjs` reads source
and emits JSON; it does not modify any files. No runtime or schema risk.
- Overall risk: **low**. The guard is additive and defensive; the
extractor and docs are additive only.

## Model Used

- Provider: Anthropic
- Model ID: `claude-sonnet-4-6`
- Context window: 200 K tokens
- Capabilities: tool use, extended context, code generation

## 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
- [ ] 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>
2026-07-13 23:47:27 -07:00
1b16f9611c feat(telemetry): document credential health retention (#9248)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The shared telemetry package (`packages/shared/src/telemetry`)
defines the public contract for first-party telemetry events — event
names, dimension shapes, and now retention windows
> - A new telemetry event, `codex.credential_health`, carries
credential-observability fields (enums, booleans, counts, coarse
buckets) — no token material and no PII
> - The retention window for this event and its class was undocumented
at the contract level, leaving data-infra and reviewers without a
discoverable source of truth
> - This pull request adds `retention.ts` as the canonical
retention-contract surface, assigns `codex.credential_health` to the
`operational_enum_count` class (90-day window), exports the contract
from the shared package, and updates the README
> - The benefit is that the retention window is discoverable from the
event definition rather than being implicit pipeline knowledge, and the
no-token/no-PII note is locked in a contract test rather than relying on
prose

## Issue Description

No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Inline description
follows the [feature request
template](.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml):

### Problem or motivation

`packages/shared/src/telemetry/` applies a 90-day retention window to
`codex.credential_health` events at the pipeline level, but this policy
is not stated anywhere in the shared telemetry contract. Without a
discoverable retention declaration, reviewers and data-infra must read
pipeline configuration to understand retention behaviour — there is no
contract-level source of truth. The `codex.credential_health` event
carries only enums, booleans, counts, and coarse buckets — no token
material and no PII.

### Proposed solution

Add a `retention.ts` module to the shared telemetry package that defines
the `operational_enum_count` retention class (90-day window) and maps
`codex.credential_health` to it. Export the contract from the package
index and add a focused contract test. Update the README with a
Retention section and a pointer in the Public Sources table. This is
additive documentation only — no runtime paths change.

### Alternatives considered

Keep retention implicit in pipeline configuration only. Rejected: this
leaves no discoverable, versioned contract for reviewers or data-infra,
and means every consumer must read pipeline config to understand
retention semantics. A schema-level declaration is the correct long-term
home.

### Roadmap alignment

Aligns with the telemetry contract hardening track — making implicit
operational knowledge explicit and testable at the shared-package level.

## What Changed

- **`packages/shared/src/telemetry/retention.ts`** (new): defines
`RETENTION_DAYS` (class → days) and `EVENT_RETENTION_CLASS` (event name
→ class). `operational_enum_count` is the only class: 90-day window for
enum/count/bucket events with no token material or PII.
`codex.credential_health` is the first entry. The `string` key type is
intentional to accommodate cross-system events (e.g. the Codex CLI) not
yet promoted to the first-party `PaperclipEventName` schema.
- **`packages/shared/src/telemetry/retention.test.ts`** (new): three
focused assertions — `operational_enum_count` is 90 days,
`codex.credential_health` is assigned that class, and the resolved
window is 90 days.
- **`packages/shared/src/telemetry/index.ts`**: exports
`RETENTION_DAYS`, `EVENT_RETENTION_CLASS`, and `RetentionClass` from the
shared package.
- **`packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md`**: adds `retention.ts` to
the Public Sources table and a new Retention section with a class
reference table and guidance for future assignments.

## Verification

- `git diff --check` passes (no whitespace errors)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run
src/telemetry/retention.test.ts src/telemetry/readme-contract.test.ts` —
runs the new contract tests and the existing readme-contract test
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — confirms the new
exports compile cleanly
- CI gates green

## Risks

Low risk. This is a documentation-only addition:
- No new telemetry event, dimension, emitter, or schema change
- No runtime code paths changed
- The new file is tree-shaken away in any consumer that doesn't import
from it
- `satisfies Record<string, number>` on `RETENTION_DAYS` ensures the
type stays correct as new classes are added

## Model Used

Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`) — Anthropic, 200k context
window, tool use enabled, no extended thinking mode. Used for code
authoring and PR composition.

## 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: Harold Kim <harold.kim@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Harold Kim <harold-kim@paperclip.ing>
2026-07-08 21:27:39 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip 69c55d465d Add telemetry data contract docs (#8886)
Adds the public telemetry data contract README, links it from contributor docs, and adds a focused README contract test for generated helper names.

Verification:
- git diff --check origin/master..HEAD
- pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/telemetry/readme-contract.test.ts
- PR CI green
- Greptile 5/5

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-07-02 12:38:03 -07:00