mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
303340f1900723dec9bdb8cbdee7586068bd9f20
236
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
4510bf7c9e |
ci: use code-owner-reviewed master for trusted PR workflow (#13470)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Pull request CI uses a trusted workflow on the AWS runner fleet. > - The caller used a fixed SHA that also needed runner-group admission. > - A mainline pin update left CI queued because the group still allowed older SHAs. > - This pull request calls the trusted workflow on master, which requires code-owner review. > - New merged workflow versions can use the existing master runner-group entry. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #12968. That Dependabot PR proposes another SHA rotation. This change keeps this first-party workflow on master instead. **What happened?** CI run 34975562974 stayed queued because its trusted workflow SHA was absent from the runner-group allowlist. The fleet itself was healthy. **Expected behavior** New reviewed versions of the trusted workflow on master should receive runner access without a separate SHA allowlist update. **Steps to reproduce** Change the caller to a new trusted workflow SHA without adding that SHA to the restricted runner group. Its jobs remain queued. The master reference removes that recurring synchronization step. ## What Changed - Call `paperclipai/paperclip/.github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml@master`. - Exclude this exact first-party workflow from Dependabot updates. - Update the existing E2E shard workflow tests for the master caller contract. - Document the runner-group entry, required code-owner review, and old-reference retention. ## Verification - `actionlint .github/workflows/pr.yml` passed. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs .github/scripts/tests/cloud-runner-routing.test.mjs .github/scripts/tests/pr-runner-rust-cache.test.mjs .github/scripts/tests/pr-dependency-cache.test.mjs` passed: 35 tests. - Parsed Dependabot YAML and checked the exact workflow exclusion. - `git diff --check` passed. - Live GitHub checks confirmed `.github/**` has code owners, CODEOWNERS has no errors, and the active master ruleset requires code-owner review. This covers the trusted workflow, caller, and CODEOWNERS itself. - The approved organization setting now allows `paperclipai/paperclip/.github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml@refs/heads/master`. All previous references and other runner-group settings remain intact. - Full application typecheck, tests, and build were not repeated locally for this workflow-only change. This PR's CI and review are pending. ## Risks New versions of the trusted workflow take effect for new callers after merge to master. Keep code-owner review and master protection enabled. Existing administrator pull-request bypasses remain unchanged. Third-party action pins, runner routing, and infrastructure are unchanged. Older callers still use their SHA pins; their allowed refs remain in place. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex performed implementation and orchestration; its exact runtime variant and context-window size were not exposed. OpenAI `gpt-5.6-luna` with high reasoning inspected workflow assumptions and applied the approved runner-group setting. Both used code and tool access. ## 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> |
||
|
Nicky Leach
|
5b913e7943 |
ci: activate restore-only Rust dependency cache (#13459)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Every change to Paperclip goes through the pull request CI workflow before it merges > - That workflow is split in two on purpose: `pr.yml` is the caller, and it pins `pr-trusted.yml` at an immutable SHA > - The pin means a change to `pr-trusted.yml` on master does nothing until someone advances the pin > - https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13457 added a read-only Rust dependency cache to the `Verify Paperclip Runner` lane, and it is inert for that reason > - This pull request advances the pin, which is the second step of that rollout > - The benefit is that the saving measured in #13457 starts to apply, about 3.9 minutes per run and about 4.7 compute-hours each day ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request is the activation half of a two-step rollout. #13457 merged on 2026-09-15, so this pull request now targets master directly. - Refs https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13457 — added the cache step this pull request activates. Merged as `f97a3f886`. - Refs https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13302 — the previous activation, and the change that introduced the `# Pin:` comment convention this pull request follows - Refs https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13300 — the change #13302 activated, and the current pin target I searched this repository for other pull requests that move this pin. One is open: - Refs https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12968 — an automated bump of the same pin. See Risks. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The pull request CI lane still recompiles the full Rust dependency tree on every run, because the cache step added in #13457 is not yet part of the active CI definition. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (multiple of the above). The change touches CI workflow configuration only. It does not change product code. **Current behavior** `.github/workflows/pr.yml` pins `pr-trusted.yml` at `44dde2de`, the squashed commit of #13300. GitHub reads `pr.yml` from the pull request and takes every job from `pr-trusted.yml` at that SHA. A change to `pr-trusted.yml` on master therefore has no effect on any pull request until the pin advances. #13457 is the only change to `pr-trusted.yml` since that pin, and it is currently inert. **Proposed behavior** Advance the pin to the commit that carries the cache step, and update the `# Pin:` comment to name the pull request it activates. **Reason and benefit** The saving measured in #13457 begins to apply. Master's own warm-cache lanes run the same checks in 3.4 minutes against 7.1 minutes cold. The net saving is about 3.9 minutes per run after the 20 second restore, across about 73 runs each day. **Breaking changes** None. The activated change only adds a cache restore. A cache miss reproduces today's behavior exactly. **Additional context** The last five activations all landed on the same day as the change they activated: #13302, #12860, #12810, #12509, and #12464. This pull request follows that convention. #13457 merged today. ## What Changed - Advanced the `uses:` pin in `.github/workflows/pr.yml` from `44dde2de` (#13300) to `f97a3f886`, the squashed merge of #13457. - Updated the `# Pin:` comment to name #13457 and the capability it activates, matching the convention #13302 introduced. The diff is the same two lines every previous activation changed. ## Verification Run the workflow and pin tests: ```bash node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs ./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs ./scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs ./scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs '.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs' ``` Result: 469 pass, 0 fail. This includes `pr.yml calls the trusted PR workflow at an immutable SHA`, which reads the pinned workflow out of git and asserts on its content. Confirm the pin resolves to a workflow that contains the cache step: ```bash git show $(grep -oE '[0-9a-f]{40}' .github/workflows/pr.yml):.github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml | grep -c "Restore Runner Rust dependencies (read only)" ``` This prints `1`. This pull request also verifies itself. GitHub uses the pull request's own `pr.yml` for `pull_request` events, so this run takes its jobs from the newly pinned workflow. The `Verify Paperclip Runner` job in this run is therefore the cached version, running the exact definition this pull request makes active. Check its log for `Cache restored from key: v0-rust-release-runner-v1-Linux-x64-...`, confirm cargo prints no `Compiling` lines for third-party crates, and compare the job duration against the 15.0 minute baseline recorded in #13457. ## Risks - **An automated pin bump is open and may race this.** #12968 moves the same pin. It is a no-op today, because `pr-trusted.yml` is identical between the two SHAs. If it rebases after #13457 lands, its target moves to a commit that contains the cache step, and merging it would activate the change with a stale `# Pin:` comment that still names #13300. Closing #12968 before merging this avoids the ambiguity. - **The activated change itself is low risk.** It only adds a read-only cache restore. A miss reproduces today's behavior. #13457 records the full risk list. - **The rollback is one commit.** Restoring the previous pin value returns CI to the current definition without touching `pr-trusted.yml`. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5, provider Anthropic, exact model ID `claude-opus-5`, 1M context window. Adaptive thinking was on. I used tool use throughout: `git` to confirm the merge strategy, the pin history, and the squashed merge SHA, the `gh` CLI and the GitHub API to read the repository merge settings and to find the open automated bump, and local `node --test` runs to verify the pin resolves and the guard tests pass. Run through Claude Code. ## 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 Note on the unchecked boxes. The CI and Greptile boxes stay unchecked until those checks finish on this pull request. On tests: the existing pin guard in `scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` already covers this change, so this pull request adds no new test. On documentation: no document describes the pull request CI pin, so there is nothing to update. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) |
||
|
Nicky Leach
|
f97a3f886e |
perf(ci): restore master's Rust dependency cache on the PR runner lane (#13457)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Every change to Paperclip goes through the pull request CI workflow before it merges > - One lane of that workflow, `Verify Paperclip Runner`, builds and tests the native Rust runner > - That lane compiles all 313 third-party crates from scratch on every pull request, in two profiles > - Master already builds and stores exactly those compiled crates, but the pull request lane never reads them > - This pull request restores that existing cache on the pull request lane, read-only > - The benefit is about 3.9 minutes less compute per run, or about 4.7 compute-hours each day, with no change to what CI checks ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this. The problem follows the enhancement issue template below. Related merged pull requests, found by searching this repository: - Refs https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13194 — created the `release-runner-v1` cache that this pull request reads - Refs https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13300 — established the restore-only dependency cache pattern that this pull request follows - Refs https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13326 — split the post-merge runner job into the `protocol` and `rust` lanes used as the warm-cache baseline below - Refs https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13259 — applied the same caching idea to the post-merge typecheck job I found no open pull request that duplicates this work. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The `Verify Paperclip Runner` job in `.github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml` recompiles the full Rust dependency tree on every pull request. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (multiple of the above). The change touches CI workflow configuration only. It does not change product code. **Current behavior** The job has no Rust cache. Its only cache step restores the pnpm store. Each run therefore downloads about 280 crates and compiles all 313 third-party crates twice, once in the `dev` profile and once in the `release` profile. Measured over 12 successful runs on 2026-09-15, the job takes 15.0 minutes on average. The range is 12.1 to 17.4 minutes. | Phase | Mean | Share | |---|---|---| | `check:eval-kernel` | 0.0m | — | | `typecheck:typescript` and protocol manifest | 0.1m | 1% | | `build:rust` — cargo `dev` profile | 1.8m | 12% | | TypeScript tests (`node --test` and vitest, 143 files) | 5.8m | 39% | | `check:replay-goldens` | 0.1m | 1% | | `typecheck:rust` — `cargo fmt` and `cargo check` | 0.9m | 6% | | `test:rust` compile — cargo `release` profile | 4.9m | 33% | | `test:rust` run | 0.8m | 5% | | Parity checks | 0.0m | — | | `check:api-authority` | 0.5m | 3% | Cargo reports the two compiles directly. The `dev` profile takes 1m24s to 1m53s. The `release` profile takes 3m54s to 5m36s. **Proposed behavior** The job restores master's existing Rust dependency cache before it runs the checks. Master already writes this cache. The post-merge `rust` lane in `.github/workflows/release-verify.yml` writes `release-runner-v1`. It also warms both profiles into that entry. The entry is 677MB and lives on `refs/heads/master`. Pull request branches are allowed to read caches from the default branch. The pull request lane restores that entry read-only. Master stays the only writer. A pull request never saves a branch-scoped copy. A pull request never evicts the shared entry. This matches the rule the pnpm store in the same file already follows. **Reason and benefit** Master runs these same checks with a warm cache. That gives a direct measurement of the saving. | Check set | Cold (pull request today) | Warm (master) | Change | |---|---|---|---| | `check:runner` and `check:api-authority` | 7.1m | 3.4m | −3.7m | | `check:eval-kernel` and `check:protocol` | 7.8m | 7.3m | −0.5m | | Cache restore step | — | 20–21s | +0.35m | The net saving is about 3.9 minutes per run, or about 26%. About 73 runs execute this job each day. The daily saving is therefore about 4.7 compute-hours. The protocol side changes very little. Vitest dominates that side, not compilation. The cache should almost always hit. `packages/paperclip-runner/runner/Cargo.lock` changed in 7 of the last 1697 commits on master. A miss costs nothing more than today's behavior. **Breaking changes** None. The change adds two steps to one CI job. It does not change any check, any test, or any product code. **Additional context** No documentation covers pull request CI caching, so this pull request updates no documents. ## What Changed - Added a `Select the pinned Runner Rust toolchain` step to the `verify_paperclip_runner` job in `.github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml`. The step exports `RUSTUP_TOOLCHAIN`. `rust-cache` hashes `rustc -vV` into the cache key, so the key needs the pinned compiler. This lane had no rustup step before, so `rustc` resolved to each runner image's default instead of the pinned 1.97.1. - Made that step tolerate a missing `rustup`. `release-verify.yml` runs on one post-merge fleet image. The gate in this workflow routes to either `ubuntu-latest` or the public pull request fleet. A missing `rustup` now costs the cache. It does not fail the pull request. - Added a `Restore Runner Rust dependencies (read only)` step that uses `Swatinem/rust-cache` with `save-if: false`. - Mirrored every cache key input from the master writer in `release-verify.yml`: the same action SHA, `workspaces`, `shared-key`, `cache-workspace-crates`, and `cache-bin`. Neither side sets `prefix-key`. Any drift causes a silent miss and a full recompile. - Added `.github/scripts/tests/pr-runner-rust-cache.test.mjs`. It asserts key-input parity across the two workflow files, the step order, and the restore-only contract. ## Verification Run the workflow shape tests: ```bash node --test '.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs' ``` Result: 413 pass, 0 fail. I also mutation-tested the new assertions. I applied each mutation to the workflow, ran the new test file, then restored the file. All 7 mutations fail the suite: | Mutation | Result | |---|---| | `shared-key` changed to `pr-runner-v1` | Caught | | `save-if` changed to `true` | Caught | | `cache-bin` changed to `true` | Caught | | `rustup show active-toolchain` line deleted | Caught | | `RUSTUP_TOOLCHAIN` export line deleted | Caught | | `working-directory` line deleted | Caught | | `command -v rustup` guard deleted | Caught | To confirm the cache key inputs match the master writer, parse both workflows and compare: ```bash ruby -ryaml -e 'pr=YAML.safe_load(File.read(".github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml"), aliases: true); rv=YAML.safe_load(File.read(".github/workflows/release-verify.yml"), aliases: true); a=pr["jobs"]["verify_paperclip_runner"]["steps"].find{|s| s["uses"].to_s.include?("rust-cache")}; b=rv["jobs"]["verify_paperclip_runner"]["steps"].find{|s| s["uses"].to_s.include?("rust-cache")}; puts a["uses"]==b["uses"]; %w[workspaces shared-key cache-workspace-crates cache-bin].each{|k| puts "#{k}: #{a["with"][k]==b["with"][k]}"}' ``` Every line prints `true`. After the pin advances (see Risks), confirm the cache works in CI. The restore step log must show `Cache restored from key: v0-rust-release-runner-v1-Linux-x64-...`. Cargo must stop printing `Compiling` lines for third-party crates. The job should drop from about 15.0 minutes to about 11.0 minutes. ## Risks Low risk overall. A cache miss produces exactly today's behavior, so the worst case is no improvement. - **This change does nothing until a second pull request lands.** `.github/workflows/pr.yml` pins this reusable workflow by SHA. The file header describes this two-step rollout. A follow-up pull request must bump that pin. That follow-up validates itself, because GitHub uses the pull request's own `pr.yml` for `pull_request` events. - **A key mismatch would silently remove the benefit.** The runner images here may ship a different default `rustc` than the post-merge fleet. The toolchain step pins the compiler to prevent this. The new test guards the remaining key inputs. If the first runs still miss, compare `rustup show` output against a master run. - **A missing `rustup` degrades quietly.** The step prints a GitHub notice and continues. CI stays green and the run is simply uncached. - **No cache poisoning path.** Pull requests only read. `save-if: false` stops any write. GitHub also isolates pull request cache writes from the default branch. - **The cache entry can expire.** GitHub evicts unused entries after 7 days and enforces a repository size limit. Master pushes are frequent, so the entry should stay warm. Eviction only causes a miss. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5, provider Anthropic, exact model ID `claude-opus-5`, 1M context window. Adaptive thinking was on. I used tool use throughout: the `gh` CLI to read 12 job logs and step timings from recent CI runs, the GitHub Actions cache API to read cache entry keys and sizes, `git log` to measure `Cargo.lock` churn, and local `node --test` runs to verify and mutation-test the change. Run through Claude Code. ## 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) - [ ] 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 Note on the unchecked boxes. The branch name `claude/paperclip-runner-conditional-81a300` carries a tool-generated suffix, so it does not meet the branch naming rule. I can rename it if you want. The CI and Greptile boxes stay unchecked until those checks finish on this pull request. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
4cc387f907 |
fix(ci): remove npm propagation from cloud readiness (#13456)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip Cloud needs a verified image and matching database
migrator before it can deploy a merge.
> - New npm package versions can take minutes to become downloadable
after the package build finishes.
> - The direct producer now publishes signed archives and a complete
dependency lockfile for each master commit.
> - This pull request makes readiness verify those artifacts and removes
the duplicate automatic npm migrator run.
> - Deployment still requires all source checks, exact image identity,
migration compatibility, and pinned dependencies.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: #13455, #13454, #13192
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The time from a master merge to the `Cloud deployable v1` signal.
**Current behavior**
Readiness polls npm metadata for the new DB and shared versions. An
automatic dispatcher also starts a separate npm-only migrator workflow.
A measured source built its packages at 06:22:41 UTC on 2026-09-15, but
both npm archives were not downloadable until 06:31:56 UTC.
**Proposed behavior**
Wait for the successful exact-source direct producer, verify its signed
manifest and all pinned downloads, and publish readiness only after the
existing source and image jobs pass. Keep manual npm migrators and
branch previews available.
**Reason and benefit**
Remove new-version npm propagation from merge-to-deployable time. The
gain depends on whether image building or source verification finishes
later; it is not a fixed subtraction from every run.
## What Changed
- Require a successful producer from the canonical repository, exact
commit, master ref, expected workflow, and approved event.
- Verify the manifest's GitHub attestation with the hosted GitHub CLI.
Enforce the exact source SHA, master workflow identity, and hosted
runner.
- Download and validate both archives and the complete dependency
lockfile after publication succeeds. Reject invalid signatures,
inaccessible objects, corrupt bytes, and source mismatches.
- Remove automatic npm-only migrator dispatch. Retain manual release and
branch-preview publication.
- Document the cloud feature-switch prerequisite and coordinated
rollback.
## Verification
- `node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs`: 405 pass.
- Focused readiness, routing, preview, and artifact tests: 249 pass.
- Workflow lint and `git diff --check`: pass.
- `pnpm test:release-registry`: 139 pass after installing this
worktree's dependencies.
- All latest-head GitHub CI checks passed. Greptile is 5/5 with no
unresolved comments.
- Application source is unchanged. Common-source local typecheck and
build passed. The full local application suite has the documented macOS
read-only-directory rename limitation from #13454 (13 failures in two
unchanged suites); Linux CI is the final application gate.
- Live readiness verification of master
|
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
da77a0c28c |
feat(ci): publish immutable cloud migrator artifacts (#13455)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip Cloud deploys images and a matching database migrator.
> - New migrator versions must currently become available on npm before
cloud can use them.
> - npm can serve package metadata while the named archive still returns
404.
> - This pull request publishes immutable migrator archives and a
complete dependency lockfile through the existing artifact store.
> - Cloud can install these exact packages without waiting for their new
npm versions.
> - This producer change prepares a separate cloud consumer and
readiness cutover.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: #13454
**What happened?**
A recent master run built both packages by 06:22:41 UTC on 2026-09-15.
Both archives became downloadable from npm at 06:31:56 UTC. Fresh
metadata requests did not remove the delay.
**What did you expect to happen?**
Cloud should be able to install the verified migrator as soon as its
package build and artifact upload finish.
**Steps to reproduce**
Compare package build completion, npm publication, version metadata
availability, and tarball download availability for a fresh full commit
SHA.
**Version**
Master commit `08adcc70d5ec45b7ced9619a3dc10c1d1bec397d`.
## What Changed
- Add a master-only workflow that builds the DB and shared archives
without publication credentials.
- Resolve the dependency lockfile from local archives, then pin those
archives to content-addressed URLs.
- Publish the complete bundle to a separate prefix in the existing
S3/CloudFront artifact store. Write the commit manifest last and verify
public downloads.
- Add a dedicated OIDC role policy. Only canonical master can assume it.
Writes require `If-None-Match: *`; the role cannot overwrite or delete
objects.
- Add source, integrity, lockfile, publication, and real npm install
tests. Document the format and staged rollout.
- Attest the validated manifest with GitHub/Sigstore before S3
publication. The signature binds every package and lockfile hash to the
exact master workflow and source commit.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/cloud-migrator-artifacts.test.mjs`: 7 tests pass,
including real `npm ci` with an empty cache and no new-version metadata
lookup.
- `pnpm test:release-registry`: 136 tests pass.
- `actionlint .github/workflows/cloud-migrator-artifacts.yml` and `git
diff --check`: pass.
- Ran the workflow's filtered install and package build against the
exact master source. Built and validated the dependency lockfile from
those real archives.
- Latest-head application tests passed, including reruns of two failures
in unchanged application tests. The final CI aggregate passed. The
application source is unchanged. Common-source local typecheck and build
passed; the full local suite has the same documented macOS
read-only-directory rename limitation as #13454 (13 failures in two
unchanged suites).
- The dedicated role and additive bucket read permission are configured.
IAM simulation allows only conditional writes in the intended prefix;
overwrite without the condition, other prefixes, and deletion are
denied.
- Published the verified master
|
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
52d120f68d |
fix(release): wait 30 minutes for npm to expose a published version (#13436)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Every release publishes a batch of npm packages and then waits for each one to become visible before continuing > - npm accepts a publish immediately but exposes it later, so that wait exists to keep a release from continuing past a package nobody can install yet > - Today that wait was too short twice in a row, and each timeout aborted the release with the batch half-published > - Version numbers are derived from what is already on npm, so every retry moves to a new number and meets the same lag > - Two canary attempts burned two versions this way and shipped nothing > - This pull request raises the per-package budget from ten minutes to thirty > - The benefit is that ordinary registry lag costs waiting instead of a failed, half-published release ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing issue. The problem, in the bug report format: **What happened** `publish_canary` failed twice in a row with the batch half-published: ``` Warning: npm accepted @paperclipai/server@2026.914.0-canary.2, but the version did not become registry-visible. Error: stopping release: npm did not publish and expose @paperclipai/server@2026.914.0-canary.2 ``` The version was accepted at 17:49:09 and became visible at 18:04:29 — about five minutes after the poll gave up. `shared`, `db` and `adapter-utils` published at that version; `server`, `paperclip-runner` and the root package did not. **Expected behavior** Ordinary registry propagation delay costs the release some waiting, not a failure. A package that becomes visible after 15 minutes must not abort the batch because of the old 10-minute wait. Longer registry outages can still leave a partial batch. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Publish any channel while npm is propagating slowly. 2. A package takes longer than `NPM_PUBLISH_VERIFY_ATTEMPTS * NPM_PUBLISH_VERIFY_DELAY_SECONDS` to become visible. 3. The release aborts, that version is half-published, and the retry picks a new version number and meets the same lag. **Paperclip version or commit** Present on master. Observed on 2026-09-14 across canary runs in workflow run 34869494325. ## What Changed - Increase npm visibility checks from 60 to 180, retaining the 10-second delay: about 30 minutes per package. - Increase canary, nightly, beta, and stable publish job timeouts from 90 to 150 minutes. - Add offline regression tests using the workflow's actual settings. They cover the observed 15-minute 20-second delay, immediate visibility, exhausted retries, and job timeout sizing. - Load the access router in test setup so its cold transform does not consume the first permission test's 10-second timeout. The permission assertions are unchanged. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/release-lib.test.mjs`: 14 passed. - `pnpm run test:release-registry`: 129 passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/access-routes-permissions-upgrade.test.ts`: 3 passed. - Regression proof in temporary fixtures: restoring 60 attempts fails the observed-delay test; restoring 90-minute jobs fails the timeout-budget test. - [CI run 34916632804](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34916632804): all jobs passed, including typecheck/release registry, build, all general and serialized server shards, browser tests, runner verification, and canary dry run. The PR has 31 successful checks and two expected Storybook skips at `a27f5e896`. - [Previously failing serialized shard](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34916632804/job/104215809616): all three access-route permission tests passed in CI after preloading the router. - Greptile's final review is 5/5 with no outstanding findings. Both review threads are resolved. - Local limits: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` stop at the runner package because this machine has no Rust `cargo` executable. The duplicate full local `pnpm test:run` was interrupted while the complete CI matrix ran. Targeted local results are listed above; full validation is from CI. The previous CI failures were unrelated to npm propagation: - [PR review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34891770396) required a test file for this fix. - [Serialized server shard 3](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34891773736/job/104136392196) timed out in the first access-route permission test at 10 seconds. The other two tests in that file passed. - The canary dry run passed in that same CI run. ## Risks Low risk. Production behavior changes only in release waiting budgets. - Polling exits as soon as npm exposes the version, so healthy publishes do not wait longer. - An unavailable version now takes about 30 minutes to report. Polls remain bounded and still fail the release on exhaustion. - The 150-minute jobs leave roughly 30 minutes for setup/build plus four full polling windows. npm command runtime and later release steps also consume that budget; a broader outage can still interrupt a batch. - The permission-test change moves module loading into a bounded setup hook; it does not relax authorization assertions. - No schema changes or operational migrations. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), 1M context, extended thinking, run through Claude Code with tool use and code execution. - OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex), with reasoning, tool use, and code execution, for the CI follow-up. Context-window size is not exposed in this session. ## 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 — targeted checks listed above; full validation passed in CI - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — workflow comments and verification details - [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 FoleyandPaperclip
|
44f6312cd8 |
fix(ci): reuse one available Cloud registry cache (#13334)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud needs a verified image for each merged source commit. > - Fresh builders restore compiled native dependencies from registry caches. > - The current workflow imports up to eleven historical cache manifests at once. > - Live builds missed native layers that a fresh builder reused from one manifest. > - This PR selects the nearest available cache and tests reuse across fresh builders. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13329 and #13330. A search of open cache PRs found no duplicate of this change. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Remote Docker cache reuse on fresh Cloud image builders. **Current behavior** [Cloud run 34714483272](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34714483272/job/103609096836) imported the previous cache manifest successfully but rebuilt `cargo-chef` and Rust dependencies. The dependency compile took 3m43s. The preceding image build had already exported those layers. A controlled [fresh-builder diagnostic](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34715336530) used the same source and registry cache. The single-manifest job reused both layers immediately. The multiple-manifest job rebuilt them and failed the cache assertion. Both jobs used GitHub-hosted runners with read-only access. **Proposed behavior** Inspect cache manifests in first-parent order and import only the nearest available one. Keep full-SHA cache exports, the ten-commit search bound, and the legacy fallback. If caches cannot be read, permit a cold build. **Reason and benefit** Avoid the observed cache misses without changing image contents or builder sizes. Expected savings include about four minutes of native tool/dependency compilation when those inputs are unchanged. The final merge-to-deployable gain still needs a post-merge measurement. **Breaking changes** No image, artifact, deployment, or runner-routing contract changes. ## What Changed - Select one available ancestor cache after Docker login and Buildx setup. - Preserve separate writable cache tags for each full source SHA. - Test cache ordering, missing caches, registry errors, and workflow integration. - Add the selector tests to the existing release-registry suite. - Export a local test cache, remove the first builder, and verify a source rebuild on a fresh builder. - Document cache selection and the stronger Docker check. ## Verification - Passed 456 focused workflow, routing, readiness, preview-artifact, and cache-selector tests. - Passed shell syntax, ShellCheck for the changed probe, actionlint workflow validation, and `git diff --check`. actionlint's shell checks were disabled for the workflow validation because unchanged migration-label commands trigger existing SC2012 notes. - The fresh-builder registry diagnostic proves the single-cache behavior. The [permanent two-builder probe passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34715771048/job/103612624090), including a changed real binary and dependency-declaration invalidation. - Passed all 35 latest-head checks (green or intentionally skipped), including full typecheck, test, build, and browser suites in [PR CI run 34715771217](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34715771217). - The real selector CLI inspected registry metadata and chose the nearest available ancestor cache. - Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 with no open findings. The PR title was corrected to meet the source-change naming rule; the review check passed after that correction. - Local full-suite runs and Docker builds are unavailable because the local Docker daemon is unresponsive after disk exhaustion. CI provides the Linux verification. ## Risks - Missing or unreadable caches cause a slower cold build. The selector logs that condition and preserves image publication. - Inspecting several missing ancestors adds lookup time. Each lookup has a ten-second timeout and the search is bounded. - The Docker test now exports a local cache. It removes the first builder before starting the second to release disk space, then cleans up its builders and files. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## 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 FoleyandPaperclip
|
0ce7df2648 |
ci: keep Cloud readiness markers out of the builder queue (#13330)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud consumes versioned readiness markers for each merged source commit. > - Those markers can be published only after the required checks and artifacts pass. > - The marker jobs currently wait for the same AWS runner capacity as builds and tests. > - A busy builder pool can delay readiness after all required work has finished. > - This PR moves the small readiness jobs to GitHub-hosted runners while retaining every dependency gate. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13326 and #13328. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Time from completed Cloud verification to a deployable marker, and AWS capacity occupied by artifact polling. **Current behavior** In [Cloud readiness run 34711557083](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34711557083), all builds and tests finished at 18:43:05 UTC. The source marker did not start until 18:44:21, and the deployable marker did not start until 18:44:37. Merge-to-deployable was 11m33s, although the prerequisite work finished in 9m44s. **Proposed behavior** Run the artifact wait and both versioned marker jobs on `ubuntu-latest`. Keep the compute jobs on the approved post-merge AWS fleet. **Reason and benefit** Avoid builder-pool queue delays after verification finishes. This also removes the long artifact-wait job from AWS capacity. Expected savings depend on queue depth: the observed run had over 90 seconds of avoidable marker waiting. The marker commands themselves take only seconds. **Breaking changes** Runner placement changes for three bookkeeping jobs. Marker names, exact-source artifact checks, required verification, and image verification stay the same. **Additional context** Searched the related runner and Cloud readiness work. This addresses queue time observed after the parallel verification change. ## What Changed - Place the artifact wait, source-verification marker, and deployable marker on GitHub-hosted runners. - Keep all existing job dependencies, source guards, permissions, and commands. - Extend routing regressions to enforce this placement and retain fail-closed readiness gates. - Document why readiness bookkeeping uses separate runner capacity. ## Verification - Passed 433 workflow, routing, source-verification, and Cloud readiness tests with `node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs scripts/cloud-readiness.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`. - Passed `actionlint` and `git diff --check`. - Passed all latest-head CI gates in [run 34712624340, attempt 2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34712624340), including typecheck, build, browser, Runner, and all general/serialized tests. - Attempt 1 had one localhost readiness timeout in an unchanged test. A single targeted retry passed all 166 files (3,225 tests passed, one existing skip), including all seven tests in that file. No timeout, assertion, or application source was changed; the retry is documented in the PR comment. - Local full-suite verification is limited by local disk exhaustion; the focused checks above pass. - Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. ## Risks - GitHub-hosted capacity can also queue, but these jobs no longer compete with AWS build/test demand. The change does not reserve instances or change box sizes. - Readiness must still fail if any prerequisite fails. The existing `needs` relationships and success-only execution are preserved and tested. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## 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 FoleyandPaperclip
|
7435b2ee9c |
ci: cache compiled Docker Rust dependencies separately from source (#13329)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud deploys images that contain the native Rust Runner. > - The image already builds that Runner before copying ordinary app source. > - A Rust source change still invalidates its entire compiled dependency layer. > - Compiled dependencies can survive source changes when their recipe is unchanged. > - This PR adds a separate locked dependency build before compiling the real workspace. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13195. A search of related Docker and Cargo cache PRs found no duplicate dependency-recipe change. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Docker image build time after Rust source or embedded protocol changes. **Current behavior** The `runner-build` stage compiles dependencies and workspace code in one layer. In Cloud readiness run 34698143548, that stage took about 3m48s when its cache was unavailable. **Proposed behavior** Generate a recipe with pinned cargo-chef 0.1.73. Build locked release dependencies in `runner-deps`, then copy and compile real Rust source and embedded protocol inputs in `runner-build`. Source edits can reuse the dependency layer from the existing registry cache. **Reason and benefit** Reduce dependency recompilation during source changes and merge bursts. Expected savings are roughly 2–4 minutes when the old native layer would miss but dependency layers are available. Full cold builds also pay for the recipe tool installation. Ordinary app-only cache hits gain little from this change. **Breaking changes** None to the shipped application or image tags. The recipe tool and compiled dependencies remain in build stages. ## What Changed - Install a pinned recipe generator with its locked dependencies and the existing package-owned compiler. - Add recipe planning and compiled dependency stages. Use the same release profile, package, binary, and lockfile enforcement as the real native build. - Remove generated source stubs before copying actual source. Preserve protocol inputs, timestamp normalization, binary staging, and application checks. - Add Docker cache wiring regressions and update the Docker cache documentation. - Run a two-build probe in Docker Runner check. It requires dependency reuse, changed real binary metadata after a source edit, and a changed recipe after a dependency declaration edit. It uses a disposable tracked-source context and exports only small metadata files. ## Verification - Passed all five Docker build-stamp and dependency-cache tests with `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/docker-build-stamp.test.ts`. - Passed the local ARM64 `docker buildx build --target runner-build --progress plain`. Local Docker then hit storage errors during a runtime probe; cache invalidation verification continues on GitHub-hosted Linux. - Passed `bash -n scripts/check-docker-runner-cache.sh`, `actionlint`, and `git diff --check`. - Passed a [Linux AMD64 cache probe](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34711042199) against the PR source: dependencies compiled in 3m49s for the baseline and were `CACHED` after a source edit; real source compilation took about 37 seconds. Binary metadata changed and dependency declaration changes altered the recipe. The permanent probe is also running in latest-head Docker Runner check. - Passed latest-head [Docker Runner check](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34711145160), including the permanent source/dependency invalidation probe. - Passed full [PR verification](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34711145352/attempts/2): typecheck, all grouped tests, native verification, build, release dry run, and browser checks. One unrelated signoff-policy browser test failed waiting for a heartbeat run on attempt 1; only that failed shard and dependent checks were retried, and passed. - Latest-head Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Full local tests/build were limited by local disk exhaustion; Linux CI completed those checks. ## Risks - The two-build CI probe has a 20-minute job limit to cover the cold build and source rebuild. It adds no AWS routing. - A fully cold build must install cargo-chef and populate the dependency layer. Both become reusable registry layers; no Actions cache is added. - The recipe and final build must keep the same compiler, build profile, package, binary, and directory layout. A source-change rebuild probe checks real cache reuse and binary invalidation. - Dependency or compiler changes still require rebuilding dependencies. Existing image verification and full-SHA publication gates remain unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## 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 FoleyandPaperclip
|
d2e940f4c1 |
ci: run release Runner protocol and Rust checks in parallel (#13326)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud deploys verified images from merged source commits. > - Cloud readiness waits for every release verification check. > - Runner verification currently runs long TypeScript tests before Rust checks. > - These checks can run on independent runners with their own build directories. > - This PR runs them in parallel while preserving all checks and the shared dependency cache. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13194. Related prior work: #13142 and #13259. A search found no duplicate parallel release-check change. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Time from merge to Cloud source verification and deployment readiness. **Current behavior** Recent successful runs take roughly 13 minutes from merge to deployable. In run 34705914878, Runner verification took 11m23s. Protocol tests finished before Rust tests and API authority checks started. **Proposed behavior** Run protocol and Rust verification in two matrix jobs. Cloud readiness still requires both jobs to pass. **Reason and benefit** Remove the serial dependency between independent checks. Expected improvement is about 2–3 minutes on a typical cached run, until the image build or server tests become the longest job. This is an estimate; post-merge timing will confirm it. **Breaking changes** Individual release Runner job names gain a lane suffix. Cloud source and readiness marker names stay the same. PR runner routing is unchanged. ## What Changed - Split release Runner checks into protocol and Rust lanes. Keep every constituent of `check:all` exactly once. - Restore the existing Rust dependency cache in both lanes. Allow only the Rust lane to save it after warming both build profiles. - Add coverage and cache authorization regressions. Document the parallel verification and single cache writer. ## Verification - Passed 477 workflow and source-verification tests with `node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`. - Passed `actionlint`, `git diff --check`, and the private AWS routing regression suite. - Passed local `pnpm -r typecheck` and the standalone `check:runner && check:api-authority` lane, including all 1,671 API tests before the protocol lane had built TypeScript output. - The broad local protocol run under Node 25 had four failures. The two affected files passed under CI's Node 24.19.0: 67 passed, 6 platform skips. - Local `pnpm test:run` aborted when disk space ran out; local `pnpm build` could not run afterward. These are local verification limits. [Linux CI run 34710421424](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34710421424) passed full typecheck, all grouped tests, native verification, build, release dry run, and browser checks. Native protocol CI passed 1,986 tests, plus 1,671 API tests and the Rust suites. - Latest-head Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings. All 33 current-head checks are successful or intentionally skipped. ## Risks - Uses one additional short-lived verification runner per release verification. The existing AWS exact-master restriction remains in place. - The Rust lane warms debug dependencies so its cache save also serves protocol tests. Both lanes always rebuild workspace code. - A workflow regression could omit a check. The new coverage test compares the matrix checks directly with `check:all`; Cloud readiness depends on the complete reusable workflow. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ab15aff390 |
feat: add experimental persistent agent chat (#13284)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Conversations must use the same tasks, controls, and execution history. > - Users need an ongoing chat with an agent without managing task properties. > - Agents should clarify and plan work, then hand execution to assigned project tasks. > - This pull request combines the reviewed Agent Chat stack for one squash merge. > - The benefit is persistent conversation with normal task governance and shared UI. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Task lifecycle, agent runtime tools, shared task UI, and browser/paid runner tests. **Problem or motivation** Users need one persistent conversation with each agent. A separate chat store or renderer would duplicate task behavior and bypass existing controls. **Proposed solution** Use a task-backed chat per company, user, and agent. Reuse the task composer and transcript. Clarify and plan in chat, then create assigned project tasks with the relevant plan. Keep Agent Chat behind its own disabled-by-default experimental setting. **Roadmap alignment** This implements the task-backed direction in [CEO Chat](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/master/ROADMAP.md#-ceo-chat). Related proposals: #2504 and #9693. Related request: #7981. The maintainer requested one squash merge of the complete stack. Consolidates the reviewed runtime [#13281](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13281), backend [#13282](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13282), and UI [#13283](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13283) layers with this PR's E2E coverage. All four layers passed CI and received Greptile 5/5 before consolidation. This PR targets master and includes the complete feature. ## What Changed - Add personal canonical chat tasks with ordinary company visibility, immutable identity, idempotent first sends, and an idle waiting state. - Process `/new` in queue order. Preserve history, release a chat pause, and fence old provider context and delayed writes. - Keep chat lifecycle rules across recovery, finalization, assignment, task lists, and rollups. - Support research and plan revision in chat. Hand plans to ordinary assigned project tasks before execution starts. Reject new chat subtasks. - Add repository-aware project creation and discovery tools, including multiple repository IDs and GitHub URLs, authorization, idempotency, and durable project-created cards. - Reuse task UI components for chat, with starred/recent agent navigation and a separate `enableAgentChat` experimental flag. - Add deterministic browser tests and 24 paid chat cells across four Codex/Claude profiles, with validated reports and screenshots. - Integrate current master recovery, controller lease, queued-message, and task UI changes. Gate chat interruption and deferred promotion on ownership/feature policy. Guarantee lease renewal and active controls are stopped even if teardown fails. - Preserve master's migration 0273 and generate chat migration 0274 with idempotent replay for development databases. ## Verification - Prior exact heads of all four PRs passed Linux CI, including build, typecheck, general/serialized tests, and browser E2E. Each had Greptile 5/5 and no unresolved findings. - Integrated local verification passed: full repository typecheck and production build, Storybook build, token gates, 340 focused UI tests, all 20 deterministic chat browser tests, two migration replay tests, 88 focused chat/queue/native/controller tests, and provider/session regressions including real lease expiry. These include the three lifecycle regressions for the final admission/teardown fixes; server typecheck also passes. Current head `1268eda16cc2af892055917e7292f068820be135` has Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings and passing security scans. All final-head CI gates passed: build, full Runner verification, typecheck/release registry, canary, all general/serialized test shards, and all browser E2E shards ([CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34696739927)). Local PostgreSQL startup contention required serialized retries; skipped fixtures do not count as passing coverage. - The earlier paid campaign passed all 24 chat cells and retained 32 screenshots: [report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-34648511170-1/index.html?report=agent-chat#suite-agent-chat). It tested `abacbdfd2f660709ec37312cdb758284c8399d04`; it is prior evidence, not a paid run of this integrated head. - Manual check: enable Agent Chat in Experimental settings, open an agent, clarify and revise a plan, then hand off to an assigned project task. Stop a reply, send `/new`, and verify fresh context with retained history. Disable the setting and verify agent shortcuts/new chat turns are blocked. ## Risks - Queue/session integration can affect retries and delayed writes. Tests cover ownership, cancellation, reset boundaries, idle recovery, and ordinary task behavior. - Migration 0274 adds conversation fields and constraints. Replay is idempotent and preserves existing development chat history. - This combines the previously reviewed stack at the maintainer's request. Agent Chat remains off by default and is separate from Conference Room. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 Astra (`gpt-6-astra`), with reasoning, code execution, browser tools, and parallel review. The exact context-window size is not exposed in this session. Codex and Claude also ran as test subjects in the linked paid campaign. ## 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 FoleyandPaperclip
|
09e208c54f |
ci: activate shared PR dependency cache restores (#13302)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - PR checks share a repository cache budget with post-merge cloud verification. > - Per-PR dependency store copies consume about 700 MB each and displace useful build caches. > - The reviewed workflow now restores shared dependency caches without saving PR copies. > - The public entry point must pin an approved immutable workflow before it can use AWS runners. > - This PR activates the merged workflow after the runner group accepted its exact SHA. > - Native verification and the app build also run in parallel, as defined in the merged workflow. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13300. Refs #13301. The cache definition is merged, and its exact SHA is authorized in the restricted runner group. This PR activates it. Its base also contains the two synthetic fixture fixes from #13301. No duplicate activation PR was found. ## What Changed - Advance the `pr-trusted.yml` pin from `03609aa6ecc9a047ed53d6b6469d8be554fbc46d` to merged commit `44dde2dec42a22746a2f36b595acacc9ccfa1df6`. - Update the adjacent pin comment to identify #13300 and the activated behavior. - Activate restore-only pnpm caching and removal of redundant Node setup steps from #13300. - Activate the already-merged separate native verification job, required by the aggregate `verify` check. The app build no longer waits for native verification inside the same job. - Activate the merged module-boundary and source-verification checks and explicit Runner Evalbook viewer build. ## Verification - Passed all 505 workflow, routing, cache, sharding, and source-verification tests. - Passed `actionlint` for both workflow files and `git diff --check`. - Passed the runner infrastructure's workflow routing regression tests. - Confirmed that the gate is unchanged between the old and new workflow definitions. The restricted runner group permits the exact merged SHA and retains its existing workflow pins. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed on the timeout-fix branch. Its 107 targeted runner tests and all Linux CI groups passed. The broad local Mac test command had 15 unrelated permission and missing-skill-path failures, documented in #13301; it stopped before later groups. - [Current-head CI run 34662664879](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34662664879) passed. All 33 checks are green or intentionally skipped at `ded4f1d093644b9279cdf56457f69a196fcf8cc2`. Greptile is 5/5, with no unresolved findings. - The live build restored the master pnpm cache, downloaded the resolved lockfile artifact, and completed a frozen install. It had no dependency-cache upload step. GitHub reports zero cache entries for this PR. Native verification and the app build started together and both passed. - [Post-merge cloud readiness for #13301](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34662389233) passed all 30 jobs in 12m42s from merge. Native verification restored the master Rust cache and passed the formerly failing fixtures. ## Risks A new PR-only dependency can require a download until a master cache contains it. The new pin also activates the merged workflow changes listed above, so the live PR must pass all checks. The repository storage cap is still 10 GB; this PR does not increase it. No allowlist or runner permission logic changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## 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 FoleyandPaperclip
|
44dde2dec4 |
ci: reuse dependency caches without per-PR uploads (#13300)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Cloud releases wait for source verification before deployment.
> - That verification reuses compiled Rust dependencies to finish
sooner.
> - PR jobs save large pnpm stores under separate merge refs and
different lockfile keys.
> - Those copies compete with master build caches for the repository's
10 GB cache limit.
> - This PR makes PR dependency caches restore-only and reuses
master-compatible keys.
> - A separate pin update will activate the reviewed workflow.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
PR merge refs accumulated roughly 700 MB copies of the same pnpm store.
Master Rust caches disappeared, and Cloud readiness run
[34656098157](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34656098157)
rebuilt dependencies after cache misses. The repository currently has a
10 GB limit. GitHub rejected a request for 50 GB; that setting needs
separate organization/billing access.
**Expected behavior**
PR jobs should reuse downloaded packages without evicting post-merge
compilation caches through duplicate uploads.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run several PRs while the checked-in lockfile needs policy
regeneration.
2. Compare the setup-node keys in PR jobs and master jobs.
3. List Actions caches by ref, key, and archive size. The PR keys repeat
across merge refs.
**Paperclip version or commit**
|
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
37d7dfb0e3 |
ci: allow dependency changes in cloud eval verification (#13286)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud deployment requires source verification for the exact merged commit. > - Contributor PRs leave lockfile updates to a separate bot PR. > - Most release checks can refresh an outdated lockfile while installing dependencies. > - Two Runner checks still require a frozen lockfile and fail after dependency changes. > - This PR gives those checks the same install policy as the other release checks. > - A valid dependency change can become deployable without waiting for another merge. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13257. The dependency change in #13256 exposed this gap. The separate lockfile update is #13279. Related #12115 addresses the bot PR check trigger; this PR fixes exact-source cloud verification itself. **What happened?** [Cloud readiness for |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
19c76bfc3f |
fix(ci): avoid empty pnpm caches from lockfile refresh (#13267)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - CI installs dependencies before it verifies and builds cloud artifacts. > - Install jobs share a pnpm package-store cache with lockfile refresh. > - Lockfile refresh resolves versions without downloading packages. > - That job saved an empty cache before full install jobs could save theirs. > - This PR prevents lockfile refresh from publishing that empty entry. > - Full install jobs can then populate the cache and reuse dependencies. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13259 for the related cloud verification cache work. No duplicate empty-cache fix was found. **What happened?** Refresh Lockfile run 34517514932 saved a 216-byte default-branch pnpm cache at 18:58:08 UTC on September 10. Full install jobs still restore that empty entry. The cache API reports 216 bytes for master and about 703 MB for populated entries with the same key and cache version in PR scopes. **Expected behavior** A job that installs dependencies should populate the shared package-store cache. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run lockfile refresh with a new lockfile cache key. 2. Its resolution-only command leaves the package store empty. 3. The Node action saves the empty archive before a full install finishes. 4. Later jobs report a cache hit but download packages again. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed on master |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
bc68312327 |
ci: use reserved AWS capacity for post-merge cloud verification (#13257)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Cloud deployments consume a verified image and exact-source
migrator.
> - An image alone is not deployable until source checks and artifact
checks pass.
> - GitHub-hosted queues delayed those checks and the final readiness
signal.
> - This PR gives trusted master work a separate concurrency allowance
on existing AWS runners.
> - Community PRs and arbitrary source inputs keep the GitHub-hosted
fallback.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13243.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Time from a master merge to the Cloud deployable v1 signal.
**Current behavior**
For merge
|
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
a23ae894a5 |
ci: cache Rust dependencies used by post-merge typecheck (#13259)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud images become deployable only after source verification passes. > - The typecheck job builds the native Runner binary through the server package. > - Fresh runners repeatedly compile Rust dependencies for that binary. > - This PR caches those dependencies for exact-source master verification. > - Workspace code and every typecheck still rebuild or run as before. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13243 and #13257. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The typecheck portion of post-merge cloud source verification. **Current behavior** The typecheck job has no Rust dependency cache. An observed release build in this job took 4m 13s, including dependency compilation. **Proposed behavior** Restore dependency build outputs for canonical master pushes with the exact source SHA. Use a separate cache key from the Runner verification job, which builds other profiles. **Reason and benefit** A warm cache should remove roughly 2–3 minutes of dependency compilation from this job. Overall deployment gains depend on the remaining critical path. The first cache population still compiles from scratch. **Breaking changes** None. All checks remain enabled. Non-master callers compile without restoring or saving this cache. ## What Changed - Select the pinned Rust toolchain before the typecheck cache lookup. - Reuse the existing pinned Rust cache action with a typecheck-specific key. - Exclude workspace crates and installed cargo executables. - Test restore/save trust boundaries and document cache behavior. ## Verification - All workflow script tests pass locally, including nine new cache trust/contract cases. - actionlint passes for release-verify.yml. - Full local typecheck and build pass on the same source base (167s and 206s); `pnpm test:run` is still running and is recorded with #13257. This PR changes only the workflow, cache guard tests, and documentation. - All 32 current-head checks are successful or intentionally skipped, including the complete Linux test matrix, build, and Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Verify cache population and subsequent restore on actual master runs. ## Risks - The first run and any toolchain/dependency invalidation compile from scratch. - Cache restore/save overhead reduces the benefit for small dependency graphs. - Disable the cache step to roll back; the existing uncached build remains valid. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. Exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## 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 — focused change tests pass; full-suite local permission failures are disclosed above - [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 FoleyandPaperclip
|
d0b7ba4194 |
ci: route approved master cloud builds to AWS (#13243)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud deploys images built from master commits. > - Cloud image builds share GitHub-hosted capacity with other workflows. > - The organization already operates AWS runners through RunsOn Fleet. > - This pull request allows approved master builds to use a dedicated cloud Fleet. > - The benefit is separate build capacity with a quick operator rollback. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13189, #13192. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Placement of the Docker cloud build after a master merge. **Current behavior** Every Docker cloud build uses a GitHub-hosted runner. Busy periods delay the job. **Proposed behavior** An operator variable enables the approved cloud Fleet for canonical master pushes and manual master builds. Other events, refs, and repositories use GitHub-hosted runners. ## What Changed - Add a guarded AWS runner selector to the Docker cloud job. - Keep the existing image cache, verification, and publication steps. - Test the selector against master, branch, tag, PR, fork, and disabled contexts. - Document provisioning requirements, placement checks, and rollback. ## Verification - 29 focused Node tests pass for routing, readiness, and disk handling. - The full workflow-script Node suite passes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes locally. - The pinned PR routing regression suite passes. The first live PR run assigned 21 jobs to the approved AWS PR group. AWS then reclaimed 16 Spot instances. The failed run is being repeated on GitHub-hosted runners while the Fleet moves to On-Demand. - Actionlint passes with existing shellcheck findings excluded (SC2012, SC2016, SC2129). - `git diff --check` passes. - Greptile reports 5/5 on commit `764d505a41dd2023751c3f361906fa9ea35bf0c6`, with no review threads. - All 30 current-head CI checks pass, including typecheck, build, all server/workspace test shards, Runner verification, and browser tests. Two Storybook checks are intentionally skipped for this change. Run: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34630550799 - The broader local test/build sequence is still running. This Mac has reported failures in unchanged application suites; their complete Linux CI shards pass. Local targeted workflow tests and typecheck pass. - Both On-Demand Fleets are deployed and healthy. Live master cloud-build verification follows the merge. ## Risks - Missing Fleet capacity or runner-group authorization can leave an AWS job queued. Disable `AWS_CLOUD_BUILDS_ENABLED` and rerun the workflow to use GitHub-hosted capacity. - The runner group must restrict access to this repository and the master version of `docker-cloud.yml`. - Docker needs more disk space than the PR Fleet. Provision 120 GiB disks and retain the free-space check. - This changes image build placement only. Source verification and migrator publication remain separate prerequisites. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size are not exposed by this environment. ## 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 FoleyandPaperclip
|
4fde92107e |
fix(ci): reuse cloud source verification for npm canaries (#13233)
Reuse the exact master source-verification result before npm canary publication, removing a duplicate verification matrix while preserving fail-closed release checks. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
96bba78fba |
feat: add readable Storybook branch bookmarks (#13231)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Maintainers use Storybook previews to review the board UI. > - Branch previews need stable bookmarks that people can read. > - The current publisher only provides a hashed branch path. > - This pull request adds a readable branch bookmark after each successful upload. > - Existing branch and build links keep working. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13226. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Manual Storybook publication for repository branches. **Current behavior** The stable branch path contains a hash. The expected `/storybook/branches/master/` URL does not exist. **Proposed behavior** Each publication updates a readable bookmark. The action summary and Markdown artifact link it. Master uses `/storybook/branches/master/`. Other names use a safe path segment that preserves case and escapes special characters. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can save and share a readable URL that opens the latest published branch build. **Breaking changes** None. Existing hashed branch entries still update. Existing build URLs remain valid. **Additional context** This follows the publisher in #13226. A duplicate search found no related bookmark change. It does not overlap planned core work in ROADMAP.md. ## What Changed - Generate readable branch bookmarks without collisions with existing build directories. - Upload the bookmark only after the full build and compatibility entry uploads succeed. - Link the bookmark in the existing summary and Markdown artifact. - Document branch-name escaping and test path isolation, stable links, and upload order. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-deploy.test.mjs`: 20 tests pass. - `actionlint .github/workflows/storybook-deploy.yml .github/workflows/storybook-visual.yml`: passes. - `git diff --check`: passes. - [Master bookmark publication](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34613344758): passed. Opened `/storybook/branches/master/` in the browser and confirmed a story renders. Downloaded the Markdown report and verified its bookmark link. - [Feature branch bookmark publication](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34613449034): passed. Its separate bookmark uses `codex~2Fstorybook-bookmarks`. - Greptile: 5/5 on `dccaf10413ecf447cb34e622b6b3c505791abb51`, with no unresolved review threads. All current-head Paperclip CI gates pass, including typecheck, tests, build, browser suites, and the canary dry run. - Full local repository checks were not repeated for this focused publisher change. The preceding run passed typecheck but encountered unrelated native-session test failures. ## Risks - Special characters in branch names use `~HH` byte escapes. For example, `feature/foo` becomes `feature~2Ffoo`. - Names that could overlap an existing hashed build directory escape the final hyphen. Very long names retain a hash suffix. - The two branch entries update separately. If the final upload fails, the workflow fails and a rerun can repair the bookmark. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, shell tools, and live deployment verification. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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 FoleyandPaperclip
|
974949a39b |
ci: spread cloud server verification across ten runners (#13227)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud waits for source verification before deploying a new image. > - The slowest server verification job spends about ten minutes running tests. > - Each job uses one test worker to preserve test isolation. > - This pull request distributes those suites across ten standard hosted runners. > - The benefit is a shorter verification path with the same test coverage. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Current behavior** In [readiness run 34572340764](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34572340764), the slowest server job ran for 638 seconds. Test execution used 594 seconds. This held readiness behind the image job. **Proposed behavior** Use ten general server jobs in the reusable release verification workflow. Keep the three chat jobs and every existing prerequisite. The complete partition test verifies that no server suite is omitted or duplicated. **Reason and benefit** Reduce merge-to-deployable time on the existing runner type. The next longest prerequisite was Runner verification at 526 seconds, so the initial expected total gain is about two minutes rather than a halving of readiness time. Measure actual queue and execution time before claiming a result. Related: #13198 introduced the separate chat lane. #12577 refreshes duration estimates; this change leaves that manifest alone. ## What Changed - Increase the general server matrix from five jobs to ten. - Verify the ten-way partition covers the complete server suite when combined with the chat lane. - Document runner demand and the unchanged local and PR grouping. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: 29 passed. - `actionlint .github/workflows/release-verify.yml`: passed. - Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed. - All latest-head GitHub CI checks passed, including the complete Linux test partition, build, typecheck, and browser gates. Greptile: 5/5 with zero open findings. - [Ten-shard timing probe](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34606772388): all 16 jobs passed; slowest server job 6m 23s versus 10m 38s in the earlier five-shard sample. This compares the server lane, not total readiness, and is not a controlled same-source A/B. - The full local `pnpm test:run` is also running. It has reproduced previously observed macOS-only failures in unchanged skill-cache and native-session suites; the corresponding Linux CI suites passed. Final local results will be attached separately. No affected-workflow test failed. ## Risks Five additional concurrent jobs per release verification run increase runner demand and repeated setup work. Queueing can offset the gain. Test workers, timeouts, permissions, and readiness requirements stay unchanged. Revert the matrix and its partition test to restore the previous split. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 / Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size are not exposed by this session. ## 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 the affected workflow tests locally and they pass; full-suite macOS limitations are disclosed above - [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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a20ecce409 |
feat: publish CODEOWNER-approved Storybook branch previews (#13226)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Maintainers use Storybook to review the board UI. > - Reviews need public previews of selected repository branches. > - Each branch needs its own URL so previews do not replace each other. > - This pull request adds manual, CODEOWNER-controlled publishing to S3 and CloudFront. > - The action returns stable branch links and permanent build links in its summary and a Markdown artifact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The existing Storybook build and manual visual-review workflow. **Current behavior** The repository has no manual branch-preview publisher. A single GitHub Pages site cannot support independent publishers without combining their output. **Proposed behavior** A CODEOWNER selects a source branch and approves publication. Each branch has a stable CloudFront URL. A completed build becomes the branch target only after its upload succeeds. The action attaches `storybook-deployment.md` with the preview links and source commit. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can share multiple branch previews at the same time. Branch builds have no repository token permissions or AWS credentials. Dependency caching and install hooks are disabled. The publisher cannot write runner dashboard files or delete objects. **Breaking changes** None. Normal visual checks keep their existing behavior. This does not change application code or GitHub Pages settings. **Additional context** Searched public issues and PRs for Storybook deployment work. No duplicate deployment proposal was found. This is maintainer infrastructure, not a roadmap-level core feature. ## What Changed - Add `Storybook Deploy` with a source-branch input and a manual entry through `Storybook Visual`. - Check the original actor and rerunner against default-branch CODEOWNERS. Require a protected deployment environment with CODEOWNER reviewers. - Separate public-source builds with no repository permissions from an OIDC publisher restricted to the Storybook S3 prefix. - Publish distinct branch URLs and retain build URLs. Preserve Storybook deep links across the branch redirect. - Add the run summary, a downloadable Markdown deployment report, focused tests, and operator setup docs and IAM policies. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-deploy.test.mjs`: 19 tests pass. - `actionlint .github/workflows/storybook-deploy.yml .github/workflows/storybook-visual.yml`: passes. - [Feature branch live publication and deployment-only rerun](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34533202273): passed. - [Master branch live publication](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34533204743): passed. - Both public branch URLs render a component story without browser errors. A deployment-only rerun updates only the selected branch entry and preserves the previous build URL. - AWS policy simulation allows Storybook uploads and denies dashboard writes and object deletion. - Full local typechecking passes. Full local tests, build, and current-head PR checks are running. - [Revised build and Markdown artifact validation](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34605623088): passed. Downloaded the report and verified its branch URL, build URL, and source commit. - The public verifier also checks that the stable branch URL points to this build and rejects stale targets. ## Risks - Storybook previews are public. Maintainers must publish only public UI fixtures. - Retained builds accumulate until an operator prunes them. - Environment reviewers must stay synchronized with CODEOWNERS. The workflow fails closed if its environment loses required protection. - The existing CloudFront distribution is shared with runner reports. Separate S3 prefixes and a dedicated role prevent the publisher from overwriting those reports. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, shell tools, and browser verification. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
932c8bec56 |
fix(ci): bake the managed runtime identity into cloud images (#13210)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Managed deployments start from the image built by the Cloud workflow. > - The managed runtime requests user and group 1001. > - The image currently builds the node user as 1000. > - Startup must remap that user, which can walk a large mounted home directory. > - This pull request uses the existing Docker build arguments to bake user and group 1001 into Cloud images. > - Matching the runtime identity removes that startup work and helps avoid health-check retries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13208, #1923, and #7861. Searched open and closed PRs for the Cloud UID change. The older #7861 addresses build context and volume ownership repair. This change uses the existing identity arguments in the Cloud workflow and preserves ownership repair. **What happened?** A measured rollout had a container log `Updating node UID to 1001` after startup. The container stayed at this step for at least 2 minutes 55 seconds before rollback stopped it. The baked node identity was 1000, while the managed runtime requested 1001. A health check timed out and the target required a second deployment attempt. **Expected behavior** Cloud images should already have the managed runtime identity. A matching image should skip user and group remapping. Fresh or mismatched volumes must still receive ownership repair. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Build the current Cloud image with its default build arguments. 2. Start it with `USER_UID=1001`, `USER_GID=1001`, and a populated home volume. 3. Observe the startup user remap before the application starts. **Paperclip version or commit** `fc06f7f05f42c675be71ff0927b6334405d520ed` **Deployment mode** Docker on managed hosts. ## What Changed - Pass `USER_UID=1001` and `USER_GID=1001` to the Cloud image build. - Check the pushed digest's baked identity before the entrypoint can repair it. Then check the normal entrypoint's effective identity and writable home before publishing the verified full-SHA tag. - Add a workflow regression and two entrypoint cases for a matching Cloud identity, including a mismatched volume. - Document the runtime identity and the first-build cache cost. ## Verification - Focused workflow and artifact tests: 27 passed. - Entrypoint tests: 11 passed. Actionlint passed. Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. Full local `pnpm build` passed. The manual [Cloud image build](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34575473213) passed on the exact PR head. It checked Sentry, baked and effective identity, writable home, orphan reaping, and full-SHA publication. The new identity check took one second. All 30 PR checks passed; the Storybook workflow was intentionally skipped. Greptile reviewed commit `114d408f637a0b53e2e2b1339c263779b1e4ae54` at 5/5 with no findings or open threads. - The full local suite for the same application source was already run in #13205. Its macOS general-server phase had 10,471 passes and 70 failures in seven unchanged files. Those failures included missing Runner fixtures, filesystem errors, timeouts, a port conflict, and a load-count mismatch. After configuring Cargo and rebuilding fixtures, 37 of 38 native tests passed; one unchanged native-resume assertion still failed. Linux PR CI passed. This change adds entrypoint tests and does not change application code. ## Risks - The first build must rebuild layers that depend on the base image identity. Later builds can reuse them. - A future managed runtime identity change must update these build arguments and checks together. - The Dockerfile's self-hosted defaults remain 1000. Runtime overrides and mounted-volume ownership repair remain supported. - The observed startup delay supports this change, but fleet timing also includes provider startup, image pull, canary order, and retries. No fixed end-to-end gain is claimed before a live rollout. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and tool use. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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 (focused workflow tests; full-suite limitations are listed above) - [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 FoleyandPaperclip
|
fc06f7f05f |
fix(ci): isolate chaos verification by caller workflow (#13208)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud deployments require verified artifacts for the merged source commit. > - Cloud readiness and the npm release independently run the same source checks. > - Their shared chaos workflow used only the source ref as its concurrency key. > - One caller could cancel the other caller's required job for the same commit. > - This pull request scopes that key to the caller workflow and source ref. > - Both callers can finish their checks without blocking deployment readiness. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13192 and #13205. Searched for related open issues and PRs; no duplicate fix was found. **What happened?** The master push for `398d304e15739d1ee6105633bd8a0e42c929d33f` started Cloud readiness and Release together. GitHub cancelled the Cloud readiness chaos job before it acquired a runner. Its annotation reported a higher-priority waiting request for the same concurrency group. The required readiness gate cannot pass after that cancellation. **Expected behavior** Cloud readiness and Release must each finish source verification for the same SHA. Standalone chaos evals must also have a separate group. **Steps to reproduce** Merge a commit to master while the npm release queue is empty. Both callers reach the reusable chaos workflow with the same source SHA. See [the cancelled job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34569569760/job/103168603926). **Paperclip version or commit** `398d304e15739d1ee6105633bd8a0e42c929d33f`. **Deployment mode** GitHub Actions on master. ## What Changed - Add the caller workflow name to the chaos workflow concurrency group. Retain source isolation and cancellation of duplicate calls within the same workflow. - Add a regression test that evaluates the group for Cloud readiness, Release, and standalone evals at the same source SHA. - Document the concurrency boundary in the readiness runbook. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/preview-artifacts.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` passed: 26 tests. - The new regression test fails against the previous concurrency key and passes with this fix. - `actionlint -shellcheck= -pyflakes= .github/workflows/runner-chaos-evals.yml .github/workflows/release-verify.yml .github/workflows/cloud-readiness.yml` passed. - `git diff --check` passed. - The full local typecheck passed for the same application source in #13205. Its macOS general-server test phase had 10,471 passes and 70 failures in seven unchanged application test files: missing Cargo/Runner test binaries, filesystem permissions, timeouts, a port conflict, and a load-test count mismatch. Linux CI test checks passed. The full local build passed with Cargo on PATH. This PR changes workflow configuration, its test, and documentation only. - All CI checks pass on the final head, including typecheck, tests, browser suites, build, and canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings. After merge, verify both callers' chaos jobs complete for the same master SHA and record the resulting readiness time. ## Risks - Two callers may now run chaos tests at the same time. This uses two existing GitHub runners, which is the intended cost of independent verification. - Renaming a caller changes its concurrency group. The fixed prefix keeps this child group separate from caller-level concurrency groups. - The readiness gate continues to require every verification prerequisite. No gate is bypassed. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 / Codex, with reasoning, repository editing, and command/API tools. Exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed by this session. ## 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 (26 focused workflow/artifact tests) - [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 FoleyandPaperclip
|
d56be3f3fc |
fix(ci): verify deployable cloud artifacts independently (#13192)
Verify source, build the cloud image, and wait for exact-source migrator packages concurrently. Emit Cloud deployable v1 only when every prerequisite succeeds for the merged full SHA. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
5cc51fad06 |
fix(release): publish exact-source cloud migrators on merge (#13188)
Publish exact-source shared and database migrator packages for each master merge through the existing trusted Release workflow, independently of the full release and image build. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
6a7025ebe3 |
ci: skip cloud runner cleanup when disk headroom is ample (#13191)
Skip cloud runner disk cleanup when both the Docker and workspace filesystems have at least 64 GiB free. Preserve the existing cleanup for low, unavailable, or invalid measurements and verify the actual shell behavior across eight scenarios. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
5c660a32f3 |
ci: build cloud images independently for each merge (#13189)
Build cloud images independently for each master commit through a reusable workflow. Preserve production release dependencies and image runtime checks, and write cloud registry caches per commit with bounded ancestor imports to prevent overlapping builds from replacing each other's cache. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
59d74b68b2 |
ci: cache the native Runner in a separate Docker stage (#13195)
Compile the native Runner from its complete Cargo and protocol inputs in a separate cached Docker stage. Preserve Cargo validation and generated-contract checks during the normal application build, normalize input timestamps across checkouts, and compile the isolated target in PR CI. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
42961b6ef1 |
fix(ci): split release chat verification into test shards (#13198)
Split release chat verification into three validated test-line shards and balance other server suites across five runners using the measured native Runner integration cost. Retire each chat case's fixtures after assertions, preserve complete test coverage, and exercise the real shard CLI in PR tests. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
9e970df4c5 |
ci: cache Rust dependencies in release Runner verification (#13194)
Cache external Rust dependencies in trusted master release verification after selecting the package-owned toolchain. Keep source compilation and all validation unconditional; restrict both restore and save to the matching master push. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
399daa1f25 |
ci: publish verified full-SHA cloud image tags (#13187)
Publish the full-source-SHA cloud image tag only after the pushed digest passes runtime, revision, and platform checks. This makes verified images directly resolvable by Cloud. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
c5c80e1feb |
ci(release-verify): split server tests five ways like pr-trusted (#13185)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Every master push publishes a canary through release.yml, gated by release-verify.yml — the fleet's staging deploys and the nightly/beta/stable chain all start from those canaries > - release-verify splits the server test suite across three shards with a 20-minute job cap, while pr-trusted splits the same suite across five > - The server suite grew on 2026-09-10 and the three shards moved to 17-19 minutes; that evening every push-triggered canary run was cancelled by the 20-minute cap mid-verify, and no canary published after 18:50 UTC > - This pull request mirrors pr-trusted's five-way server split in release-verify, putting shards back at the 10-15 minute range with real headroom > - The benefit is a canary lane that reports test verdicts instead of dying on an infrastructure cap ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Push-triggered Release runs stopped publishing canaries on 2026-09-10. Runs at 19:34, 22:30, and 22:37 UTC were all cancelled by "The job has exceeded the maximum execution time of 20m0s" on a `verify_canary / General tests (server (N/3))` shard. No canary published after 18:50 UTC, which also starves the staging fleet's continuous deploys. **Expected behavior** release-verify's server shards finish well inside the 20-minute cap and runs conclude with a test verdict, as pr-trusted's five-way split of the same suite does (10-15 minutes per shard). **Steps to reproduce** 1. Compare server shard durations in the `verify_canary` job across 2026-09-10: 11-14 minutes in the morning, 17-19 minutes from 15:06 UTC, over 20 minutes by evening. 2. Observe runs 34521169020, 34537798488, and 34538332689 cancelled at the cap. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at `d1ba17eec` (current tip; its canary run was one of the cancelled ones). ## What Changed - `release-verify.yml`: the `general-server` matrix goes from three shards to five, byte-for-byte the shape `pr-trusted.yml` already runs, with a comment recording why. ## Verification - The identical five-way split runs green on every pr-trusted run (10-15 minutes per shard today, including on PRs merged this evening). - The suite's own growth (slower chat-connector tests) is being addressed separately; this PR only removes the artificial cliff. ## Risks - Low risk: two more runners per verify run; no test content changes. If shard durations regress further, the cap fires again — which is the correct signal once shards have honest headroom. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5), extended thinking, tool use via Claude Code CLI. ## 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 |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
2a05b5ed34 |
ci: split runner verification from build (#13142)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip uses GitHub Actions to verify changes before release. > - The Paperclip Runner has a separate verification boundary. > - The build job currently runs this verification before the workspace build. > - This pull request moves runner verification into its own parallel job. > - The benefit is clearer CI results and less wait time for independent work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The trusted PR and release verification workflows run Paperclip Runner verification inside the Build job. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (GitHub Actions CI workflows). **Current behavior** The Build job runs `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` before it builds the workspace. A runner verification failure appears as a Build failure. The workspace build cannot run in parallel with runner verification. **Proposed behavior** Each workflow has a `Verify Paperclip Runner` job with the same checkout, dependency install, and command. The Build job only builds its required outputs. Both jobs run after the same gate and policy jobs. **Reason and benefit** The runner command is an independent verification boundary. A dedicated job gives it a clear status and allows it to run in parallel with Build. **Breaking changes** None. The same runner verification command still runs in both workflows. ## What Changed - Added a dedicated `Verify Paperclip Runner` job to the trusted PR workflow. - Added a dedicated `Verify Paperclip Runner` job to the release verification workflow. - Kept the Build jobs independent and retained their existing build commands. - Updated the trusted-workflow policy test for the additional dependency-install job. ## Verification - Ran `git diff --check`. - Ran `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`. - Ran `pnpm exec prettier --check .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/release-verify.yml`. - Confirmed both jobs retain their prior runner, dependency, and policy prerequisites. ## Risks Low risk. The runner verification job repeats the existing setup. It adds one parallel GitHub Actions runner to each affected workflow. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, 128k context window, reasoning and tool-use capabilities. ## 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> |
||
|
|
5488a79eb5 |
ci(docker): build each architecture on a native runner instead of QEMU (#12821)
## Thinking Path A fleet rollout failed with `image_manifest_not_found` for a commit that had merged and gone green. Tracing that back: the fleet resolves releases against the `-cloud` image, that image comes from `docker.yml`, and `docker.yml`'s runs on master have been reading `cancelled` for a long stretch. The cloud half was fine; the production half was hanging and taking the run down with it — and, because a run holds the concurrency slot for its whole duration, starving later commits of a build at all. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No tracking issue — described inline, per CONTRIBUTING.md. **What's wrong.** `build-and-push` builds `linux/amd64,linux/arm64` on an x86 runner, so arm64 runs under QEMU. It hangs there — deterministically, in the same step: ``` #111 [linux/arm64 build 8/10] RUN pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build ``` …then emits nothing until `timeout-minutes: 60` kills it. Three consecutive runs on 2026-09-04, silent for **38, 43 and 45 minutes** respectively. The amd64 leg reached `production 5/5` minutes earlier in every one. **Why it stayed hidden.** A timed-out job is reported by GitHub as **cancelled, not failed**. The run conclusion reads "cancelled", which looks like supersession rather than breakage, so the production image quietly stopped publishing. **The knock-on.** A run that burns the full hour holds the top-level concurrency slot for that hour. `cancel-in-progress: false` keeps exactly one pending slot, so merges arriving faster than one an hour supersede each other while queued. Sampling the last ten master commits, **five produced no image at all** — their Docker runs have zero job records because they never started. **Expected.** Both architectures publish, and a commit merged during a busy period still gets an image. ## What Changed `build-and-push` becomes a two-leg matrix, each on a runner of its own architecture: | platform | runner | |---|---| | `linux/amd64` | `ubuntu-latest` | | `linux/arm64` | `ubuntu-24.04-arm` | Each leg pushes **by digest** (`push-by-digest=true`, untagged), and a new `merge-and-push` job names the digests into one manifest list with the real lane tags. Nothing is publicly tagged until the merge, so a half-published multi-arch image is never a pullable state. Two supporting changes: - **Per-arch BuildKit cache refs** (`:buildcache-amd64` / `:buildcache-arm64`). Separate runners sharing one ref would overwrite each other on every build. - **The PID-1 orphan-reaping check moves to the merge job**, since that is where a tagged, pullable image first exists. It still runs against the pushed image rather than a local build, for the same reason as before. **arm64 is kept, not dropped.** The cloud variant is amd64-only and can be — managed hosts are amd64. This is the self-hosted image and ARM hosts consume it, so dropping arm64 would break them. GitHub-hosted arm64 runners are free for public repositories, which this is. `build-and-push-cloud` is untouched. It was already `platforms: linux/amd64` and has been succeeding in ~14 minutes throughout — that is why `-cloud` images exist at all. ## Verification Parsed the workflow and asserted its shape (jobs, matrix, `needs`, step order, that the cloud job is unchanged). The artifact actions are pinned by SHA with version comments, matching the repo's dominant convention — `upload-artifact` v7 and `download-artifact` v8, the same pins used across the other workflows; v8 is required for the `pattern` / `merge-multiple` inputs the merge job uses. **This PR's CI does not exercise the change.** `docker.yml` triggers on master and tag pushes, never on pull requests — deliberately, since it publishes release images. The first real run is after merge, so the check is: the next master push produces a `Docker` run whose `build-and-push (amd64)`, `build-and-push (arm64)` and `merge-and-push` jobs all succeed, and whose conclusion is `success` rather than `cancelled`. ## Risks - **Not testable before merge**, per above. If the matrix is wrong the next master push fails loudly rather than silently — which is already better than the current state, where the failure mode is an invisible "cancelled". - **First use of `ubuntu-24.04-arm` in this repo.** No other workflow uses an ARM runner. They are free for public repos, but if the label is unavailable the arm64 leg will fail to schedule and the merge will not run — no image, same as today, and visible. - **Digest-push changes the publish shape.** Between the legs finishing and the merge running, digests exist untagged in ghcr. Anything watching for tags sees no intermediate state; anything enumerating untagged manifests will see more of them. - **Cache refs change name**, so the first build after this lands is cold on both legs and will be slower than steady state. - **Does not fix the underlying QEMU hang** — it avoids it. If arm64 ever has to build under emulation again, the same stall is presumably still there. - No application code, schema, server or persistence change. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude — Opus 5, model ID `claude-opus-5`, run through Claude Code. Extended thinking enabled. Tool use throughout: GitHub Actions API to correlate run/job outcomes and read build logs, `git` for ancestry checks, and a YAML parser to validate the rewritten workflow's structure. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] 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 A workflow change has no unit test to add, and `docker.yml` cannot run on a PR; the verification section states what to check on the first master run instead. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
01ad858492 |
ci: raise the multi-arch Docker publish timeout to 120 minutes (#13114)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Docker workflow publishes the server images that all deployments pull, including the `sha-*` images that downstream consumers deploy > - The `build-and-push` job builds for linux/amd64 and QEMU-emulated linux/arm64, and that build now takes more than its 60 minute job timeout > - Every run dies at the timeout, and each doomed hour-long run holds the per-ref concurrency slot, so queued master pushes supersede each other and no image publishes at all > - This pull request raises the multi-arch job timeout to 120 minutes > - The benefit is that image publishing works again, with headroom for the build to grow ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #12821 replaces the QEMU-emulated arm64 build with native runners — that is the durable fix for the build duration itself. This PR is the immediate unblock so images publish again while #12821 lands. No existing issue for the outage. Description follows the bug report template: **What happened?** The `docker.yml` `build-and-push` job hits its 60 minute `timeout-minutes` cap on every run. The last fully successful `docker.yml` run was September 2. Since then almost every run ends `cancelled`: the multi-arch build is killed at the timeout, and runs queued behind it are superseded by newer master pushes before they can start. The amd64-only `build-and-push-cloud` job often still succeeds inside those cancelled runs, which masked the breakage. **Expected behavior** Every master push and canary tag dispatch publishes its `sha-*` production and cloud images, and the `promote_canary_channel` job runs. **Steps to reproduce** Look at the runs of the Docker workflow on master: `gh run list --workflow docker.yml --branch master`. Nearly every run since September 5 ends `cancelled` or `failure`. Open a cancelled run: the `build-and-push` job runs for 61+ minutes and its "Build and push" step ends `cancelled` at the job timeout. The last runs that succeeded (September 2) took 39 to 54 minutes for the same job. ## What Changed - Raise `timeout-minutes` on the `build-and-push` job from 60 to 120, with a comment that explains why. The amd64-only `build-and-push-cloud` job keeps its 60 minute cap. ## Verification - `actionlint .github/workflows/docker.yml` reports no issues in this change (only pre-existing info-level shellcheck notes in untouched steps). - Compared job durations across the last successful runs (39-54 minutes) and the recent timeout kills (61+ minutes) to confirm the cap is the failure cause. - After merge, the next master push should produce a `docker.yml` run that completes with both build jobs green. ## Risks Low risk. The change only gives the existing build more time. A genuinely hung build now occupies a runner for up to 120 minutes instead of 60. The slow arm64 emulated build itself is worth a separate look (native arm runners or splitting the platforms), but that is a larger change than this outage fix. ## Model Used Claude (Anthropic) — Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use via Claude Code. ## 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 (no code paths changed; workflow linted with actionlint) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (not applicable for a CI timeout value) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (the workflow comment documents the rationale) - [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 |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
8f099c3f83 |
ci: dispatch a Docker build for every canary tag (#12950)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Every master merge publishes an npm canary, and downstream managed deployments consume the matching `sha-<short>-cloud` Docker image. > - The canary image relies on the master-push `docker.yml` run, whose single pending concurrency slot is superseded by every newer push. > - On a busy day the image build never survives: five consecutive canaries shipped npm packages with no cloud image on 2026-09-06, and downstream deploys starved for ~18 hours while master kept moving. > - The nightly and beta lanes already solve exactly this by dispatching `docker.yml` at their tag ref after pushing it. > - This pull request wires the canary lane into the same mechanism, so every canary tag gets an image build no master push can supersede. > - The benefit is that a published canary always has its images, and downstream release resolution stops walking back to day-old builds during busy merge windows. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12769 / #12855 (the earlier image-publishing incident in the same pipeline, different failure mode). **What happened?** `docker.yml` serialises per ref with one pending slot (`concurrency: docker-${{ github.ref }}`, `cancel-in-progress: false`). Master pushes arriving faster than the ~50-minute build supersede the pending build indefinitely. On 2026-09-06, canaries `2026.906.0-canary.1` through `.3` (and the commits between) published to npm with no `sha-<short>-cloud` image on GHCR — the Docker run list shows `cancelled, cancelled, cancelled` for their commits. Downstream managed rollouts correctly refused to deploy image-less canaries and pinned at `canary.0` for ~18 hours. **Expected behavior** Every published canary has its Docker images. A busy merge window must not be able to prevent image publication for tagged releases. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Merge to master more often than the Docker build takes to complete, for several hours. 2. Observe npm canaries advancing while every `Docker` run for their commits completes `cancelled`. 3. Observe `ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip:sha-<short>-cloud` returning 404 for each of those canaries. **Paperclip version or commit** Master at `83987210` (diagnosis time); the starved canaries were `2026.906.0-canary.1`–`.3`. **Deployment mode** GitHub Actions release + image pipeline; consumed by managed cloud deployments. ## What Changed - `.github/workflows/release.yml`, `publish_canary` job: - New step after "Push canary tag": dispatch `docker.yml` at `refs/tags/canary/v<version>` — identical to the nightly and beta lanes' existing step, including the step-summary note. The dispatched run keys its concurrency off the tag ref, so master pushes cannot supersede it, and `docker.yml`'s `type=sha` mapping publishes `sha-<short>` / `sha-<short>-cloud` for any ref. - The job gains `actions: write`, mirroring `publish_nightly`. - No `docker.yml` changes: it already accepts `workflow_dispatch` for exactly this pattern. - No dry-run guard needed: `publish_canary` runs only on `push` events, so the `dry_run` dispatch input cannot reach it. ## Verification - YAML lints clean; the step is a line-for-line mirror of the proven nightly-lane step (tag source swapped for the job's existing `canary_tag` output). - The concurrency claim is docker.yml's own documented behavior: groups are per-ref, and a tag ref is distinct from `refs/heads/master`. - Not run: a live canary publish — the next master merge after this lands exercises it end to end; the worst case (double build for a canary whose master-push run also survives) is benign, since both runs push identical content-addressed tags. ## Risks - Low. Roughly one additional Docker build per canary on busy days (on quiet days the master-push run and the dispatched run both execute — duplicate work, identical images, no conflict since the sha tags are content-equivalent for the same commit). - `actions: write` on `publish_canary` matches the grant `publish_nightly` already carries for the same purpose. > 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 Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, model id `claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use in Claude Code: GHCR manifest probing, Actions run-list forensics, and workflow-lane comparison. ## 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 (workflow-only change; YAML linted; no test harness targets release.yml) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (not applicable — CI wiring mirroring an existing proven lane) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (the step's inline comment documents the invariant) - [x] I have considered and documented the 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 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
0cc796b7bd |
Build isolated preview artifacts for exact-source deployments (#13041)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Managed deployments need a cloud image and a database migration package. > - Branch commits can lack both artifacts until a normal release runs. > - Operators need to test an exact commit without advancing release aliases. > - This pull request adds a preview build mode to the existing release workflow. > - Builds use an immutable source SHA and publish isolated, reusable artifacts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Release automation, cloud Docker images, and shared/database npm packages. **Problem or motivation** An operator cannot deploy an unpublished branch with new migrations using only the normal release artifacts. Publishing it through a normal lane would also advance shared release aliases. **Proposed solution** Dispatch the trusted release workflow on master with a full source SHA and a request UUID. Build missing SHA images and, when needed, deterministic preview shared/DB packages. Publish packages under the preview dist-tag with exact workspace pins. Reuse matching artifacts on retries. **Roadmap alignment** This extends release tooling for operator validation. It does not add a core product feature or duplicate a planned product capability. Related PR searches found no duplicate preview deployment workflow. ## What Changed - Add the preview channel, request correlation, artifact checks, and result artifact. - Compile source packages in a separate job from the npm publisher. The publisher uses trusted master code and disables package lifecycle scripts. - Publish only SHA cloud image tags. Preserve release aliases. Use full-SHA tags and no shared build cache. - Verify full source identity for reused packages and images. Both image and npm publishers use isolated jobs and the externally master-restricted npm-canary environment. Fail on registry authentication errors, outages, or artifact identity mismatches. - Let bundled-package preparation use patches from the requested source checkout. - Document publishing configuration, artifact contracts, and deployment order. ## Verification - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. - Passed `pnpm test:release-registry`: 107 tests, including eight preview tests. - Passed `actionlint -shellcheck= .github/workflows/release.yml`. - Built real shared and DB preview tarballs from an isolated exact-SHA checkout. Verified package source identity and all 244 SQL files and journal entries. - Verified the full revision behind an existing published SHA cloud image. - `pnpm test:run` exposed missing local embedded PostgreSQL library symlinks. The package's postinstall repair restored initdb; all 12 previously affected suites passed on rerun (95 tests). Additional local matrix reruns are in progress. The complete PR CI matrix is green, including general/serialized tests, e2e, typecheck, build, release registry, canary dry run, and the required verify gate. - Live preview publication and staging deployment require this workflow on master and the compatible control-plane backend. They have not run yet. No production deployment was performed. ## Risks Preview npm versions are immutable public artifacts. Both packages must retain their trusted publisher for release.yml in environment npm-canary. Source builds must remain separated from privileged npm publishing. The deploying control plane must verify source identity, integrity, and migration compatibility before use. Normal release jobs retain their existing conditions. Roll back by stopping preview dispatches and reverting the workflow/tooling. Published preview versions remain isolated from normal release tags. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository tools, code execution, and test runs. The session does not expose a more specific model version or 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 the available 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 - [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the feature template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket identifier - [ ] I have run the full tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added tests for the new behavior - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open recommendations or follow-ups - [x] I will address review comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
54a99d8840 |
fix(evals): make the chat viewer the default published Evalbook (#12952)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Direct Runner evals retain evidence across model configurations. > - Evalbook already has a grid and a read-only Runner Lab chat viewer. > - Public projection stripped the view and selected a second plain result page. > - This change uses the existing viewer for public and private results. > - The data access differs, but the presentation does not. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12931, #12945. Related open runtime-contract PR #11634 does not contain this report-only change. **What happened?** The public direct-eval campaign opened plain result pages. The access-controlled artifact used the chat viewer. Users could not follow the same recorded interaction from the published grid. **Expected behavior** Every newly generated Runner Evalbook opens the existing chat viewer. The grid and durable run history remain. Public evidence has explicit redactions. **Steps to reproduce** Open campaign gha-34062394019-1 from the direct-eval history. Click a result, then compare its plain page with the corresponding Actions artifact. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced at |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
fee8d8dc39 |
fix(runner): repair direct live provider bootstrap (#12932)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip runs AI agents through qualified provider backends. > - The direct live eval workflow builds one immutable Runner runtime for every matrix cell. > - The workflow reinstalled the packed Runner with npm. > - That install discarded pnpm patches and selected provider dependencies outside the qualified lock. > - The first pnpm deployment model also placed its virtual-store marker at the wrong level; a real deployment keeps `.pnpm` beside the scoped Runner package. > - AgentCore enforced the current context-aware harness but the direct eval CLI did not supply the production v3 runtime context that harness requires. > - This pull request preserves the qualified dependency graph, resolves the real deployment layout, and makes direct evals exercise the production runtime-context contract. > - The benefit is that live eval cells reach their provider turn with the same artifacts and context contract that Paperclip qualified. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #12931 **What happened?** The full direct live eval campaign failed every ACPX cell during `session.open`. The portable runtime had an incorrect dependency root. Its npm install also discarded the qualified ACP server patches. AgentCore cells first failed because Runner enforced `aws-agentcore-harness-v1` while the provisioned stack and eval profile use `aws-agentcore-harness-context-v2`; after aligning that revision, the direct eval CLI still omitted the required v3 runtime context. **Expected behavior** The direct eval runtime must preserve the frozen pnpm dependency graph and patched provider bytes. Runner, server validation, OpenAPI, and the deployed AgentCore stack must use one qualification revision. Direct eval attempts must supply the same immutable native runtime-context contract as production. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Dispatch `Runner Direct Live Protocol Evals` from `master`. 2. Select an ACPX Claude, ACPX Codex, or AgentCore roster. 3. Observe a pre-turn provider bootstrap failure. **Paperclip version or commit** `d96452db059338b329b458ba8fe359fef72f1363` **Deployment mode** GitHub Actions on the RunsOn Linux x64 fleet. ## What Changed - Build the reusable direct-eval runtime with `pnpm deploy --prod`. - Resolve ACPX dependencies from the actual scoped-package layout of a self-contained pnpm deployment. - Align AgentCore configuration and qualification checks on `aws-agentcore-harness-context-v2`. - Materialize a minimal immutable v3 runtime context for each isolated direct eval attempt. - Add workflow, package-authority, runtime-context, Rust, and server regression coverage. - Document the qualified packaging, runtime-context, and AgentCore revision contracts. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner exec vitest run src/live/runnerd-codex-transport.test.ts` (70 tests) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner exec vitest run src/cli/eval-session-contract.test.ts` (14 tests) - Focused Runner contract tests (36 tests) - Focused server profile tests (47 tests) - Focused Rust managed-provider and native-selector tests (19 tests) - `node --test packages/paperclip-runner/scripts/runner-protocol-eval-workflow-security.test.mjs` - `actionlint .github/workflows/runner-protocol-live-evals.yml` - A local `pnpm deploy --prod` produced both qualified ACP server digests. - A Linux reproduction of the first follow-up smoke identified the real deployment root and the missing AgentCore runtime context. ## Risks The AgentCore revision change rejects profiles that still use the obsolete v1 value. This is intentional because the provisioned context-aware harness and current eval profile use v2. Direct eval prompts now receive the same fixed runtime-context preamble as production, so behavior scores may move; that is the intended qualification surface. The workflow package layout changes, but tests assert the new entrypoint and dependency root. This change does not modify the browser full-stack E2E workflow. > 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. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6. The context-window size is not exposed in this session. The model used extended reasoning, repository tools, code execution, Docker-based Linux reproduction, and GitHub Actions diagnostics. ## 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 (for example, `docs/...` or `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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
d96452db05 |
fix(runner): restore Vite 6 viewer compatibility (#12929)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Paperclip Runner includes an issue-thread viewer for direct Evalbook reports. > - The runner package uses Vite 6.4.3. > - Dependabot changed the React plugin from version 4.7.0 to version 6.1.1. > - React plugin 6.1.1 requires Vite 7 or Vite 8 package internals. > - The live evaluation workflow found this mismatch when it built the viewer on a clean Linux worker. > - This pull request restores the compatible plugin and adds the viewer build to pull request CI. > - The benefit is that CI detects this class of report-viewer build failure before a paid evaluation campaign starts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The direct live evaluation workflow failed before model execution. The `build:issue-thread` command could not load `@vitejs/plugin-react@6.1.1` with Vite 6.4.3. The plugin imported the unavailable `vite/internal` package path. **Expected behavior** The Evalbook issue-thread viewer must build from a clean frozen-lockfile installation before the live evaluation matrix starts. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Check out commit `165ca56a22adb60e5fda56045442d9c8498116a8`. 2. Run `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts`. 3. Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner build:issue-thread`. 4. Observe the `ERR_PACKAGE_PATH_NOT_EXPORTED` error for `vite/internal`. **Paperclip version or commit** `165ca56a22adb60e5fda56045442d9c8498116a8` **Deployment mode** Built from source in GitHub Actions on Ubuntu. ## What Changed - Restore `@vitejs/plugin-react` 4.7.0 in the Vite 6 runner package. - Follow the repository policy: trusted PR CI regenerates and verifies the lockfile artifact, and the master refresh workflow commits the lock-only update after merge. - Build the Runner Evalbook viewer in pull request CI. ## Verification - `ci / policy`: regenerated the dependency lock artifact successfully - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner build:issue-thread` - `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/runner-protocol-live-evals.yml` - `node --test packages/paperclip-runner/scripts/runner-protocol-eval-workflow-security.test.mjs` - `git diff --check` ## Risks Low risk. This change restores the previous React plugin major version for one package. The selected version declares support for Vite 6. Pull request CI now builds the affected viewer directly. > This bug fix does not add or change a roadmap feature. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. Tool use and code execution were enabled. The Codex app managed the context window. ## 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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
9ecd93a54d |
test(e2e): link runner campaign summaries (#12927)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip uses a paid full-stack campaign to verify runner behavior across providers and environments. > - The campaign already creates an interactive report, workflow logs, and retained evidence artifacts. > - The merge job summary shows result totals but does not link to those resources. > - Reviewers must search several workflow jobs and artifacts to find the executed cells. > - This pull request adds direct and safe links to the exact campaign, each cell, the workflow logs, and the artifacts. > - The benefit is that a reviewer can inspect a result from the Actions summary with one click. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves the `Merge and enforce campaign result` summary in the `Runner Full-Stack E2E` workflow. **Subsystem affected** The runner E2E report generator and its GitHub Actions workflow are affected. **Current behavior** The summary lists each selected cell and its result. It does not link to the published campaign report, the workflow logs, or the evidence artifacts. **Proposed behavior** The summary includes a `View results` section. It links to the exact immutable campaign report, the workflow logs, and the artifacts. Each cell name links to its stable section in the campaign report. **Reason and benefit** The current summary does not show reviewers where to inspect the run. Direct links make the result evidence discoverable without manual URL construction or artifact searches. **Breaking changes** None. This change only adds links and stable HTML anchors to existing report output. **Additional context** Related: #12904. The cited successful campaign is [run 34026735033](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34026735033). ## What Changed - Add a safe URL builder for public campaign, workflow, and artifact links. - Add a `View results` section to the GitHub Actions campaign summary. - Link each summary table cell to its exact section in the immutable campaign report. - Add stable execution anchors to the generated dashboard. - Reject non-HTTPS, credential-bearing, malformed, and ambiguous link destinations. - Document the new links and their retention or publication timing. ## Verification - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit` — 116 tests passed. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm typecheck` — passed, including migration safety. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm exec prettier --check ...` for all changed files — passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. - The full local server suite also ran. One unrelated macOS workspace-runtime file passed 157 tests and failed 4 existing path and port assumptions. Two failures compare `/var` with `/private/var`. Two failures cannot reserve a port outside a hard-coded range. This PR does not change that file or its dependencies. ## Risks - The immutable campaign link becomes available after the history publisher completes. The workflow and artifact links remain available while publication runs. - The artifact link requires GitHub access and follows the existing 30-day retention period. - Invalid configured URLs are omitted instead of being rendered into the summary. > 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 desktop agent with GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the context-window size. The agent used repository inspection, agentic reasoning, code execution, and GitHub CLI tools. ## 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/no-internal-issue-references`, `fix/sandbox-secret-resolution`, `feat/adapter-retry-backoff`) 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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
165ca56a22 |
fix(runner): scope live eval tokens to eval repo (#12911)
## Thinking Path > - The merged direct live eval workflow must read the private `paperclip-evals` repository at an exact commit. > - Its first hosted dispatch failed before provider execution because the GitHub App token was minted from the `paperclip` repository installation. > - GitHub returned 404 while resolving the private eval commit, proving that token did not have the required repository scope. > - Minting each short-lived token from the exact private eval repository installation supplies only the cross-repository read boundary the workflow needs. > - A workflow regression now verifies every eval-token block keeps that exact scope. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description The first default-branch run of Runner Direct Live Protocol Evals failed in its immutable eval-commit verification step with HTTP 404. No provider jobs ran and no provider spend occurred. **What existing behavior does this improve?** It allows the protected direct live eval workflow to verify and check out the private `paperclipai/paperclip-evals` repository. **Current behavior** All four eval-token blocks set `GH_REPO` to `paperclipai/paperclip`, selecting a token installation that cannot read the private eval repository. **Proposed behavior** Set `GH_REPO` to the exact `paperclipai/paperclip-evals` repository in authorization, catalog, matrix, and report jobs. **Reason and benefit** The app mints a short-lived token from the correct repository installation while the main repository continues to use its ordinary read-only workflow token. **Breaking changes** None. ## What Changed - Scoped all four private-eval installation tokens to `paperclipai/paperclip-evals`. - Added a regression requiring that exact scope in every token block. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:runner-protocol-eval-publish` — 15 passed. - `node --test .github/scripts/tests/get-bot-token.test.mjs` — 3 passed. - `actionlint .github/workflows/runner-protocol-live-evals.yml` — passed. - `git diff --check` — passed. ## Risks - The workflow reads a private repository. The token is still short-lived, repository-specific, masked immediately, and used only by the protected default-branch workflow. - This changes no provider execution, Runner behavior, report content, S3 publishing, or browser E2E 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 on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed. The model used reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, GitHub Actions diagnostics, and test 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 and contains no internal 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 where applicable - [x] I have considered and documented 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 |
||
|
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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
1dceee9a4e |
fix(runner): persist warm Daytona workspaces (#12901)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agent work and the execution state for each task. > - Remote agents run in sandbox environments such as Daytona. > - Daytona keeps files while a sandbox is stopped, but deletion removes those files. > - Runner Codex did not copy successful remote workspace changes back to the host workspace. > - A warm sandbox could therefore hide data loss until Daytona replaced or deleted the sandbox. > - This pull request makes the host workspace durable after every successful turn and keeps verified reusable sandboxes warm. > - The benefit is reliable multi-turn work across warm reuse, restart, stop, and sandbox replacement. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A successful native Codex turn in Daytona could leave workspace changes only in the remote sandbox. A later warm turn appeared to work because it reused that filesystem. A replacement sandbox could start from stale host data and lose the successful changes. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must merge each successful remote turn into the authoritative host workspace before it completes the run. A verified warm lease may reuse its remote files. A replacement lease must reconstruct the exact durable workspace seed. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run Codex in a reusable Daytona environment. 2. Write a file during one successful turn. 3. Replace the Daytona sandbox before the next turn. 4. Observe that the next turn can start without the prior file on the unpatched code. Related remote workspace foundation: #10070. ## What Changed - Added explicit `host_current`, `durable_seed`, and `adopt_remote` workspace preparation modes. - Added atomic, versioned native workspace descriptors and seed archives under `PAPERCLIP_HOME`. - Added real native sandbox export and three-way host merge before terminal result completion. - Added workspace-only recovery after a proposed result. Recovery does not submit another provider turn or consume the provider retry budget. - Added fail-closed handling when a sandbox with unexported changes is gone. - Kept healthy reusable Daytona sandboxes started for legacy Codex and Runner Codex. - Kept the Runner Codex process and provider session across verified warm turns. - Added the paid `daytona-warm-continuity` browser suite. It contains exactly the legacy Codex and Runner Codex cells. Each cell performs three measured turns. - Documented `pnpm test:e2e:runner -- --suite daytona-warm-continuity`. No package script was added. - Added no database migration. The metadata format is backward compatible and idempotent. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit` — 114 passed - Native workspace, finalizer, session, and environment tests — 232 passed - Daytona provider tests — 150 passed - Workspace staging and merge tests — 98 passed - Runner transport tests — 63 passed - Legacy Codex restore tests — 5 passed - Rust format and compile checks pass through root typecheck - The paid Daytona suite was not run locally because the required Daytona, OpenAI, and immutable image credentials are not present. ## Risks - The main risk is an incorrect workspace identity or merge after a crash. Durable descriptors bind the run, workspace, lease, provider lease, local root, remote root, and baseline digest. Ambiguous evidence fails closed. - The host merge may conflict with concurrent host edits. The existing three-way merge and exclusion rules handle this case and surface failures. - A deleted sandbox cannot recover unexported bytes. Paperclip now blocks with `workspace_sync_out_unrecoverable` instead of reporting success or rerunning the provider. - There is no database migration. Descriptor writes and recovery are atomic and idempotent. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The run used agentic reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, test execution, Git, and GitHub CLI tools. ## 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 |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
3ed5b7c5c8 |
refactor(server): extract the active-run output watchdog into a feature module (#12853)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server recovery service monitors active runs and applies watchdog decisions > - The watchdog rules and database operations lived in one large recovery service > - This structure made the rules harder to test and made company scoping harder to inspect > - This pull request moves the watchdog into domain, application, and adapter layers > - The benefit is a smaller recovery service, pure policy tests, and clear company-scoped ports ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The active-run output watchdog that detects silence, suppression, and terminal evidence. **Current behavior** The recovery service contains the watchdog policy, use cases, database operations, and process control in one file. **Proposed behavior** A feature module separates pure policy, use cases and ports, and Postgres and process adapters. The recovery service delegates its public watchdog methods to this module. **Reason and benefit** The separation makes policy decisions easy to test. Company identifiers on every reader and writer port make tenant scope clear. Smaller service methods reduce change risk. **Breaking changes** None. The recovery service keeps its public methods and call sites. Related public watchdog work includes [#7043](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/7043) and [#7770](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/7770). ## What Changed - Add the `server/src/modules/active-run-watchdog/` feature module with domain, application, and adapter layers. - Move watchdog policy, use cases, Postgres access, and local process control into the module. - Keep the recovery service public methods and delegate them to the module. - Add 53 pure module test cases and retain 8 Postgres integration cases. - Add company scoping and transaction rollback coverage. ## Verification - Run `vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/modules` and confirm 3 files and 53 cases pass. - Run `vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts` and confirm 1 file and 8 cases pass. - Run the full server suite in pull request CI. - Compare the type-check result with a fresh baseline on the same checkout. ## Risks The main risk is a behavior change in recovery decisions during the move across layers. The pure policy tests cover the moved rules. The integration tests cover database behavior, company scope, and transaction rollback. Pull request CI runs the full server suite. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, runtime-managed context window, tool use, code execution, and repository review support. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
87832c48fd |
feat(runner-e2e): publish declared screenshots (#12895)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses runner end-to-end reports to compare agent profiles and execution environments > - The report dashboard shows each reviewed final-state screenshot as a thumbnail and gallery item > - The public history publisher removed all per-attempt images before it regenerated the dashboard > - Therefore the public dashboard had the new layout but could not show the screenshots from the run > - The publisher needs a narrow rule that keeps only screenshots from the exact live fixture issue route > - This pull request keeps those trusted PNG files in every future public S3 and GitHub Pages report > - The benefit is that each future report can show its screenshot gallery without exposing logs, traces, videos, archives, arbitrary images, or generated report trees ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The runner E2E job captured final-state screenshots in its private artifact. The public S3 and GitHub Pages publication step removed those screenshots before it regenerated the dashboard. As a result, the public report showed the new dashboard controls but no screenshot thumbnails or gallery items. **Expected behavior** Each future public runner E2E report must include reviewed PNG screenshots from the live fixture issue. Other captures and active or unsafe evidence must stay private. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run the runner full-stack E2E workflow on `master` before this change. 2. Open the private `runner-e2e-report-*` artifact and confirm that it contains per-attempt PNG screenshots. 3. Open the public campaign URL and confirm that the dashboard has no screenshot gallery items. **Paperclip version or commit** The issue was reproduced on commit `64d8929`, after the report design change in PR #12889. **Deployment mode** GitHub Actions with the public S3 and GitHub Pages report publishers. Related design work: Refs #12889. ## What Changed - Mark screenshots from the exact server-created live fixture issue route with `public-runner-fixture`. - Keep marked PNG files in both the S3 history bundle and the GitHub Pages bundle. - Keep captures from other issue routes, sensitive routes, and external origins private. - Bind public files to the normalized execution ID, attempt, and safe PNG base name. - Validate every retained image with the existing PNG signature and 12 MiB size checks. - Skip missing-artifact sentinel results with attempt `0` when they have no public screenshots. - Continue to remove unmarked images, videos, traces, archives, generated HTML reports, and other private evidence. - Update publisher tests, workflow checks, report copy, and the public-evidence security documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts tests/runner-e2e/history.test.ts tests/runner-e2e/report.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts tests/runner-e2e/workflow-security.test.ts -t "uses environment-scoped OIDC"` - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` - `PAPERCLIP_PLAYWRIGHT_CHANNEL=chrome pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/runner-e2e-dashboard.spec.ts` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - Regenerated the dashboard from retained evidence for Actions run `33968240659` without a paid matrix rerun. The public-stage proof contained 121 screenshot gallery items and thumbnail frames, with zero generated HTML report files. The trusted-fixture marker and route gate have separate focused tests. - All pull request CI checks pass on commit `ccd2b49e1`. ## Risks - This change intentionally makes marked fixture screenshots public at the campaign URL. A screenshot can show data that a raw-byte secret scan cannot detect. - The capture helper marks a screenshot only on the exact loopback issue route for the fixture that the harness created. A different issue, sensitive page, or external origin stays private. - The publisher also requires the marker, a safe normalized path, a valid PNG signature, and the size limit. - The change does not publish videos, logs, traces, archives, arbitrary images, or generated browser report trees. > 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, model `gpt-5.6-sol`, with high reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, browser inspection, and GitHub CLI access. The working context was the Codex desktop task context. ## 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
8430bd897f |
ci: reuse trusted cache for Daytona images (#12862)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The full-stack runner campaign checks local and Daytona runner behavior. > - A Daytona image content miss starts a cold multi-stage Docker build. > - Stable dependency and agent CLI layers take most of the image build time. > - Development targets must not write shared cache state. > - This pull request adds a registry cache with a default-branch write gate. > - It also puts volatile source inputs after stable install layers. > - The benefit is a shorter Daytona image build without weaker secret isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves the Daytona runner image stage in the full-stack E2E workflow. **Subsystem affected** The GitHub Actions runner E2E workflow and its Daytona Docker image are affected. **Current behavior** Each new Daytona image content ID starts with an empty BuildKit cache. A runner source change also invalidates dependency and agent CLI install layers because volatile inputs occur before those layers. **Proposed behavior** All authorized campaigns can read one GHCR BuildKit cache. Only a campaign whose target ref is the repository default branch can update that cache. The Dockerfile installs dependencies and agent CLIs before it consumes volatile runner source or revision metadata. **Reason and benefit** The paid runner matrix spends several minutes building the image before any selected cell can start. Cache reuse removes repeated stable setup work and makes focused Daytona iterations faster. **Breaking changes** None. The immutable content tag, digest inspection, Cosign signature, image labels, pinned base images, and provider credential boundary stay unchanged. ## What Changed - Read a registry-backed BuildKit cache for Daytona image content misses. - Export the cache only when the resolved target ref is the default branch. - Keep provider credentials outside the image build and cache. - Install provider-pack dependencies before runner source is copied. - Keep expensive agent CLI installs before source revision metadata. - Add workflow and Docker layer-order contract checks. ## Verification - `prettier --write .github/workflows/runner-full-stack-e2e.yml tests/runner-e2e/daytona-image.test.ts tests/runner-e2e/workflow-security.test.ts` - `actionlint .github/workflows/runner-full-stack-e2e.yml` - `git diff --check` - I did not run a test suite or Docker image build locally. The requested iteration policy reserves those checks for GitHub Actions. ## Risks Low risk. BuildKit can use a cache record only when its content key matches the build instruction and input. Development targets have read-only cache access. The cache contains public source and build outputs, but it does not receive provider credentials or the GitHub token as Docker build inputs. > 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, 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 - [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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
bcc6fe7a44 |
fix(runner): restore multi-turn remote sessions (#12840)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - The runner executes agent turns on local and remote providers. > - A remote per-turn session must save its state before Paperclip releases its sandbox. > - The session runtime returned after 100 milliseconds while the remote checkpoint still ran. > - The next turn also checked the local state path instead of the verified remote backup. > - This pull request waits for the bounded remote close and accepts only a verified suspended backup. > - The benefit is reliable multi-turn execution without weaker identity checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A successful remote agent turn released its sandbox before the runner saved the verified continuation backup. The next turn failed with `runner_state_identity_mismatch`. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must finish the bounded remote checkpoint before it releases the sandbox. A later turn must validate and restore the digest-matched suspended backup. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a native ACPX Claude Plan test in a non-reusable Daytona sandbox. 2. Reject the first plan to start a second turn. 3. Observe that the second turn fails before provider execution. **Paperclip version or commit** The failure reproduced at `13775a90b078ff64872f50961ea1b83d575e7bc6`. **Deployment mode** GitHub Actions with a Daytona sandbox. ## What Changed - Wait for the internally bounded remote runner close and checkpoint before the host returns. - Preserve the existing short cleanup bound for other providers. - Validate remote continuation lifecycle from a complete digest-verified backup when local runner state is absent. - Keep corrupt, non-suspended, mismatched, and unverified state fail-closed. - Make native Plan completion and accepted-Plan wake prompts deterministic. ## Verification - A prior 45-cell local campaign passed 44 cells. The only failure was the OpenCode Plan prompt variance fixed here. - A focused OpenCode local Plan rerun passed. - ACPX Claude Daytona message and question cells passed. - Focused regressions cover delayed checkpoint close and verified remote backup lifecycle. - GitHub Build and the focused ACPX Claude Daytona Plan cell will validate this exact head. ## Risks Remote runnerd sessions now wait for their internally bounded close/checkpoint path before returning; generic provider cleanup retains the existing 100 millisecond bound. Durable run success still cannot be reversed. The environment release guard still blocks sandbox destruction when no verified backup stamp exists. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, extended reasoning, with code execution and GitHub Actions inspection. ## 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 task id - [ ] 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
4b0e324c63 |
ci: activate the Docker context integrity gate for PRs (#12860)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Pull request CI runs through `pr.yml`, which pins the reusable `pr-trusted.yml` workflow by commit SHA, so `pr-trusted.yml` changes take effect only when the pin moves. > - PRs #12855 and #12858 added the `docker_context_integrity` job and wired it into the `verify` aggregate, but the pin still points at a commit from before them. > - Until the pin moves, a pull request that strips a committed Docker build input still merges green and breaks every post-merge image build. > - This pull request bumps the pin to the #12858 merge commit, the standard second step of every `pr-trusted.yml` change. > - The benefit is that the Docker context integrity gate now blocks merges, which closes out the 2026-09-04 image-publishing incident end to end. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12855 and #12858 (the gate this activates) and #12769 (the incident that motivated it). **What happened?** The `docker_context_integrity` job exists on master but does not run on pull requests, because `pr.yml` pins `pr-trusted.yml` at `a0a78ee6`, which predates it. **Expected behavior** Pull requests run the gate, and the `verify` required check fails when a change strips a committed Docker build input. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open any pull request before this change: the ci run shows no "Docker context integrity" job. 2. After this change, the job runs on every full-CI pull request and `verify` requires its result. **Paperclip version or commit** Pin moves from `a0a78ee60946a5f79f85b2bd0584fc766fae43bb` to `03609aa6` (the #12858 merge commit). **Deployment mode** GitHub Actions pull request CI. ## What Changed - `.github/workflows/pr.yml`: the `pr-trusted.yml` pin moves to the #12858 merge commit. One line. ## Verification - The pinned commit is master's current tip and contains the job, the `verify` wiring, and both probe revisions; its own CI (on #12855 and #12858) is fully green. - This PR's ci run itself executes the newly pinned workflow, so the gate's first live run is visible on this very pull request. ## Risks - Low. Identical mechanism to every previous pin bump. If the new lane misbehaves on some runner, reverting this one line restores the previous pin. > 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 Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, model id `claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use in Claude Code. ## 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 (one-line pin bump; the pinned workflow's tests ran green on #12855/#12858) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (covered by the pin tests updated in #12855) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (not applicable to a pin bump) - [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 |
