4 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	7bc03e0acd	feat(runner): default harnesses to full auto and support task reassignment (#13686) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their work. > - Agent Chat uses native runners to save plans and coordinate tasks. > - Provider defaults differed across harnesses and could stop unattended work at a second permission gate. > - Agents also lacked a dedicated tool to move existing work to another agent safely. > - This change defaults native providers to full automatic permission for provider tools and connected tools. > - A guarded reassignment tool preserves task identity, stops the previous run, and schedules the new owner once. > - Codex and Claude chat acceptance tests now use production permission defaults. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Native runner, ACPX Claude permission policy, task authority, and Agent Chat acceptance tests. **Problem or motivation** A user can authorize an agent to save a plan or create a task, but Claude's default provider gate can still stop that action. Reassignment needs a dedicated operation that preserves context and avoids concurrent owners or unintended recovery runs. **Proposed solution** Default Claude/ACPX to `approve-all`, OpenCode to `allow`, and Codex to `never`. Apply the defaults at configuration, execution, fresh-session, resume, driver, and proxy boundaries. Keep explicit permission settings and server-side company, claim, task-mode, and approval checks. Add `reassign_task` with version checks, durable idempotency, audited cancellation, and guarded successor scheduling. **Alternatives considered** A Paperclip-only allowlist still blocks provider tools and other connections during unattended work. Full automatic permission is the requested product default. Recreating a task discards its identity and history. Updating assignment without stopping the previous run can leave two agents working on the same task. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing planning, delegated work, governed tool access, and recovery features. It adds no new service or schema migration. Recent related tasks and open PRs were checked for duplicate work. **Additional context** Related: #13678 (Agent Chat tools and recovery), #13677 (remote runner startup). The stacked legacy-adapter companion is #13693. This also fixes the deployed-server artifact fallback needed to stage the current runner binary. ## What Changed - Default Claude/ACPX to `approve-all`, OpenCode to `allow`, and Codex to `never`, including missing settings at direct driver and proxy entry points. These defaults cover provider tools and connected tools. Preserve explicitly configured restrictive modes. - Include assigned approval reads using canonical side-effect classifications, so verifying a recorded approval does not trigger another provider gate. Paperclip approval decisions still enforce controller authority. - Carry the new permission mode through server configuration, execution contracts, recovery identity, TypeScript, and Rust. Keep `approve-paperclip` as an optional restricted mode, with exact SDK rules and closed unknown requests. It is not a default. - Add `reassign_task` to the semantic catalog, controller, mock authority, and generated contracts. - Guard reassignment with company authorization, expected owner and version, protected-state checks, and durable retry receipts. - Honor explicit backlog task creation atomically with the initial plan, without scheduling a wake. Preserve backlog holds regardless of dependency readiness. - Stop active work before changing ownership. Restore the prior owner through a guarded, idempotent wake if final handoff validation fails. Keep intentional reassignment stops out of failure recovery. Preserve backlog and blocked states without waking them early. - Add authorization, concurrency, replay, stop, and permission boundary regressions. Add Codex and Claude chat reassignment cases and run native chat cases with production defaults. - Clarify shared runner guidance: save plans and Paperclip documents directly with `write_document`; create and register a local file only when a downloadable file is requested. - Document provider defaults and the operator choices for existing agents. ## Verification - Current head `d82fbb0f03546d27cecf072250e4172e0b1ee662`: **55 checks passed**, with two intentional skips. [PR checks](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13686/checks). - Greptile reviewed that exact head at **5/5**. The security reviewer acknowledged the intended full-auto default, and the acknowledged discussions are resolved. - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally after rebasing onto current master. Targeted adapter/server, runner, API, default/resume, and heartbeat configuration tests passed. - **All six real-provider acceptance cases passed on their first attempt, with cleanup passing:** plan handoff, task reassignment, and backlog creation/status, each on native Claude and Codex. Evidence records Claude's effective `approve-all` mode. [Campaign and downloadable evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35469926548). - The live campaign tested combined revision `a37881c824dcd7170380fc4b788732fc743e5da7`. The final PR heads add only a heartbeat test expectation correction; application code is unchanged from that live-tested revision. - The campaign's result-enforcement job passed. Its separate report publisher failed because the trusted workflow's `patchedDependencies` configuration differs from its frozen lockfile. All six results and screenshots remain available as GitHub artifacts. The overall manual workflow is red for this publishing failure. - Full-suite coverage is supplied by the passing CI partitions. The separate unsharded local run was stopped after the corresponding CI partitions passed; it is not counted as a completed local run. - Reassignment tests cover stale state, cross-company access, denied authority, cancellation failure, compensating wake, and idempotent retries. Backlog tests verify the original creation audit, saved plan, exact task count, and absence of task-bound runs. ## Risks - Agents with no explicit permission mode now receive full provider tool permission, including connected tools. This is a deliberate broad default. Existing explicit restrictive modes still apply. Controller authorization, company isolation, workspace boundaries, and Paperclip governance remain in force. - Reassignment crosses run cancellation and task ownership transactions. Durable stop intent, revalidation, audit receipts, and guarded queue dispatch cover interruptions and retries. - The new permission enum requires a current runner artifact. The remote artifact fallback uses the same resolved controller binary for upload and execution. - Live provider behavior remains subject to the selected model. Targeted live results do not qualify the full catalog. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with code execution and repository tools. The exact deployment 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>	2026-09-19 16:49:18 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9fd2e50310	feat: create company skills from runner tasks (#13538) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Runner gives agents tools to change company resources. > - Users need agents to save reusable skills during a task. > - A saved skill needs a visible result that users can inspect and edit. > - This pull request adds `create_skill` and a task feed card linked to Skill Studio. > - Users can open the saved skill from the task and edit the same resource. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Runner tools, company skill storage, task feed, and Skill Studio. **Problem or motivation** The Runner has no dedicated tool to create a company skill. A user cannot follow a creation result from the task feed to the saved skill. **Proposed solution** Add a company-scoped `create_skill` tool. Save the skill with the existing company policy. Add one creation card to the task. Open a named sidebar tab from that card. Let the user open the same skill in Skill Studio. **Alternatives considered** An agent can write a local file, but that file is not a company skill. A second document copy in the task would become stale after a Studio edit. The sidebar therefore reads the saved skill directly. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the shipped Skills Manager, Skill Studio, and Skills Store milestone. The maintainer requested and approved this scope. Search found no duplicate `create_skill` PR or issue. Related UI validation work: #8715. This PR does not change that validation display. ## What Changed - Add the real Runner tool, its contract, and its mock implementation. - Validate the complete SKILL.md and derive company, task, agent, and run identity from authentication. - Apply the existing company skill policy. Do not assign the skill to an agent. - Make keyed retries return one skill and one creation event. Reject conflicting retries. - Make concurrent file creation safe. Never replace an existing published skill during creation. - Add a creation card, a named sidebar tab, and an Open in Skill Studio action. - Show saved Studio edits when the user returns to the task. - Add storage, policy, mode, retry, UI, and Product E2E tests. Document the tool. - Fix deleted-name reuse, onboarding panel persistence, immediate feed refresh, and mock validation parity from review. - Serialize Studio file edits and renames with skill deletion and recreation. Reject stale editor requests before they can change a replacement skill. - Generate the standalone mock parser and validator from the production contract. Use portable UUIDs so the browser scenario bundle builds. ## Verification - All latest-head PR checks pass on `145dd76a5`, including all server shards, browser E2E, Runner verification, build, typecheck, and release dry run. Greptile: 5/5 with no open findings. An interrupted CI runner was retried successfully. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - Review regressions: 73 storage tests, 6 real API tests, 63 UI tests, and 61 semantic runtime tests passed. Parser synchronization passed. - CI exposed existing fire-and-forget Sentry test races. Reproduced the resumption race locally, then synchronized the related sweep and finalizer assertions on the actual report; all 27 tests across the three affected files pass. - Runner scenario browser build and strict content-security-policy check: passed. - Runner suite: 2,012 tests passed; 10 skipped. - `pnpm test:run`: the general-server batch had 12,416 passes and two failures. The old tool-count assertion was fixed; all 16 authority tests then passed. The chat webhook test had a socket error; it passed four isolated reruns. - Both workspace test groups passed. The isolated route suites completed. Two socket failures in the initial route batches passed on individual reruns; all remaining 61 files passed. - Product E2E `create-skill-studio`: passed with local Codex and local ACPX Claude. - Manual browser test: submit a task, observe the real tool call and creation card, open the sidebar, edit in Studio, save, and return. The task reached Done. The saved second revision and sidebar tab survived a server restart. - The new companion headless Runner Eval passed. Companion coverage PR: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/23. Daytona was not run because no immutable runner image was configured. ## Risks - Database writes and local file writes cannot share one transaction. Recovery accepts only an exact file-for-file retry after a database rollback. Conflicting files remain untouched. - The sidebar displays the current skill. The feed card remains the historical creation receipt. - No database migration, dependency, or workflow change is included. - Remote Daytona behavior still needs a run with a configured immutable image. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (`gpt-6-astra`) handled design, integration, review, and browser verification. OpenAI `gpt-5.6-luna` assisted with bounded implementation and eval work. Both used code execution and tool access. The host did not expose the context window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-16 13:01:58 -05:00
Dotta	ea86e780af	feat(runner): add authorized scenario tool runtime (#12361) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The runner action catalog defines what scenario tools can exist > - A catalog entry must not grant authority by itself > - Scenario runs need run-scoped discovery and invocation checks > - Observable results must not expose protected values > - This pull request adds an authorized package-local scenario tool runtime > - The benefit is deterministic tool testing without production service authority ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** `packages/paperclip-runner` scenario tool runtime. **Problem or motivation** Scenario tests need to expose only authorized actions. They also need stable denial records, redaction, and idempotent command handling. **Proposed solution** Project the canonical scenario contracts into a visible catalog. Recheck policy at invocation. Dispatch allowed operations through the mock control-plane port and return redacted receipts. **Alternatives considered** Direct production bindings are outside this pull request. The runtime uses only the package-local mock port. **Roadmap alignment** This supports runner conformance and scenario testing. It does not enable an adapter or production service call. ## What Changed - Added run-scoped scenario tool discovery. - Added claim, role, task-mode, and policy authorization. - Added input validation, redaction, and authorization records. - Added fake-agent and Codex definition projections. - Added deterministic mock dispatch and idempotency coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - The focused semantic runtime test has 10 passing cases. ## Risks Low risk. The runtime is package-local and uses the mock control-plane port. It creates no production binding. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 and repository tool use. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (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	2026-08-29 23:50:11 -05:00
Dotta	300b7f4b7e	Add deterministic capability control plane (#12355) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Semantic operations need a control plane that owns authorization and state changes > - Conformance tests need this authority without a live server or database > - The existing in-memory port covers transport facts but not capability-governed domains > - This pull request adds a deterministic capability-aware control plane for tests > - It keeps the implementation behind the package testing entry point > - The benefit is repeatable authorization and mutation tests before production wiring lands ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** packages/paperclip-runner testing and semantic capability contracts **Problem or motivation** Later semantic action slices need deterministic company, actor, task, governance, workspace, secret, budget, routine, and audit state. A live Paperclip server would make those tests slow and environment-dependent. **Proposed solution** Add serializable capability fixture types and an in-memory control-plane adapter. Enforce company scope, claims, roles, idempotency, redaction, faults, and audit records. Export the adapter only from the testing entry point. **Alternatives considered** The tests could mock each action separately. That would duplicate authorization rules and would not verify state transitions across multiple actions. **Roadmap alignment** This supports the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It does not enable production semantic operations or change app execution. ## What Changed - Add deterministic capability fixture types and seed state. - Add an in-memory capability control-plane adapter. - Enforce run, company, actor, claim, role, and idempotency boundaries. - Model governed task, document, interaction, workspace, secret, routine, and audit changes. - Add deterministic tests and testing-entry-point exports. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - The branch changes 5 files relative to its declared base. ## Risks The main risk is a permissive mock that hides a production authorization error. The adapter fails closed for missing claims, wrong roles, cross-company access, duplicate mutations, invalid state, and restricted secret access. Tests cover each fixture domain and serialized restore 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, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, 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 linked an existing public issue or described the issue in-PR - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [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	2026-08-29 22:54:30 -05:00