Commit Graph
3 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
Dotta 86bc3db693 feat(runner): search and load unassigned company skills (#19676)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Native agents use tools to read reusable company skills.
> - The existing native skill tools read only skills assigned to the
agent.
> - An agent can stop when a task needs another skill that is already in
the company library.
> - This pull request adds tools to search and read accessible company
skills on demand.
> - Agents can use the saved instructions without a persistent
assignment change.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Problem or motivation**

An agent cannot use an unassigned company skill through the standard
native skill tools. A generic API workaround needs extra discovery and
can return the full library.

**Proposed solution**

Add `search_skills` and `load_skill` to the native tool catalog. Search
returns small pages of stored metadata. Load returns text from a saved
version and lists its files. Both tools use the current run identity and
existing company and project access checks.

**Alternatives considered**

Assign each skill before a read, or use generic API discovery. Both add
work to a read that the company already permits.

**Roadmap alignment**

This extends the existing skills discovery path. It does not add a
store, permission model or installation flow. Related: #15409 adds an
assigned-skill loader to a different adapter.

## What Changed

- Add bounded company skill search. Search does not synchronize sources
or fetch repositories.
- Add versioned text reads for SKILL.md and supporting files. Page text
and file lists. Reject unsafe paths and binary files.
- Recheck access after storage reads. Keep the existing closed Muse,
skill-test and completion-review tool scopes.
- Add integration tests with isolated PostgreSQL and real local package
storage. Update the native tool count assertion and skill documentation.
- Limit text files to 16 MiB before body reads. Accept saved file paths
up to 4,096 characters plus the repository prefix. Return the response
digest only on the first page.
- Add optional byte limits to the package readers. Select only the
requested legacy file in PostgreSQL. Cast the size comparison to
`bigint` so existing callers can omit the limit.
- Cache decoded text and its digest for one run. Limit the cache to 64
MiB and 64 files. Check access on each page and clear the cache when the
run closes.
- Read repository source files and wrapper inputs through verified warm
reads or isolated recovery. These reads do not hold the company startup
lock.

## Verification

- Local verification tested tree
`7ba5828387ca0a9c2ee99655818a28de1235a854`, published as commit
`c9d04cba601541cca506f5b72aa6f7272a25379f`. The published tree matches
that tested checkout. Current head
`33fa3d3d4c7988288685ce7c6499d064e0cb9079` (tree
`8daaa2f3264d1cd65a9b6d85dbb9d3729ac4a29d`) removes six comment lines
from three source files; its executable code is unchanged from the
locally tested revision.
- Four native skill and authority Vitest suites: 72 passed and 7
existing sandbox checks skipped. All 20 skill-library integration tests
passed.
- Skill-library and package-store suites: 65 passed. This includes the
45 package-store cases and the same 20 integration cases. Ran with umask
`022` for executable-file tests.
- Server source and test typecheck layers passed in low-memory mode. The
affected source cycle also passed a final separate check.
- `git diff --check` and `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs`
passed.
- Red/green evidence: the new default inline-read case reproduced
PostgreSQL error `22003`. Two max-size paging cases reproduced extra
body reads. Warm and cold repository reads timed out while another
connection held the company startup lock. All five cases pass after the
fixes.
- Both 16 MiB paging cases check that the second page performs no
additional body read. They also check that source-access revocation
blocks a cached page. Warm and cold lock cases load both the generated
wrapper and a supporting file while the startup lock remains held.
- The first cold-read test attempt had an incorrect helper import.
Corrected the test import, reproduced the lock timeout, then verified
the fix.
- [CI on the previous
revision](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42319652795)
passed typecheck, build and policy. Serialized shard 2 failed in the
unchanged test `schedules bounded retries for failed accepted
interaction continuation wakes`. The same case passed locally: 1 passed;
416 cases were excluded by the filter. The cause of the earlier CI
failure remains unknown. [CI for
c9d04cba](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42323260426)
passed: 52 successful jobs and one skipped selector, including
typecheck, build, all serialized server shards, native server tests,
Runner/Rust, and e2e. This establishes a later pass; the earlier
heartbeat failure's cause remains unknown. [CI for current head
33fa3d3d](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42325148224)
passed: all 52 applicable workflow jobs succeeded, with one skipped
selector. The head has 58 successful check runs and three skipped
checks; Snyk also passed.
- Earlier failures remain recorded. Preflight cannot build Rust because
Cargo is absent. The first catalog assertion expected 51 tools instead
of 53. Test startup needed the plugin SDK build. An earlier typecheck
hit the 8 GiB memory limit; low-memory checks passed. The previous
package test failed under umask `077`; it passed under `022`, and this
run's complete package suite passes with `022`.
- Greptile reviewed current head `33fa3d3d` at 2026-11-07 01:40 UTC: 5/5
with no outstanding findings. The three older Ponytail threads are
resolved after checking the size/cache, long-path, and bigint fixes and
regression tests. Ponytail's supplemental refreshed assessment stopped
before completing and posted no new findings. Its earlier findings are
fixed and all seven review threads are resolved. The completed Greptile
assessment covers current head.
- No hosted deployment or live provider run was performed.

## Risks

- Package reads can recover stored packages through the existing storage
layer. Search reads only stored database metadata.
- Load is a read. It does not install files into the provider workspace
or change runtime bundles. It does not grant tool access or authorize
actions in the skill text.
- Callers must retain the returned version ID for later pages. A missing
version returns an error.
- Files above 16 MiB return a size-limit error. The run cache retains at
most 64 MiB of decoded text and 64 entries. A cache miss or eviction
requires a full verified file read. Each page still checks current
access. The SHA-256 response field is null after the first text or
file-list page.
- No database migration or UI change is required.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools and code
execution. The exact model ID and context window are not exposed to this
agent.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
2026-11-07 09:23:14 -06:00
DottaandPaperclip eb049aebf2 feat(skills): let agents update company skills safely (#15049)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is an open source control plane for AI-agent companies.
> - Company skills give agents reusable work instructions.
> - Skill Studio can edit skill files and save version history.
> - Agents can create a skill, but they do not have a first-class update
tool.
> - An agent update needs a version check and safe retry behavior to
prevent lost edits.
> - This pull request adds `update_skill` through the existing company
skill file API.
> - The change keeps company policy, version history, and audit records
in one path.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Subsystem affected**

Cross-cutting: the server API, shared validation, and runner tool
catalog.

**Problem or motivation**

An agent can create a company skill but cannot update its `SKILL.md`
through a first-class tool. An unguarded retry can also create duplicate
versions or overwrite a newer edit.

**Proposed solution**

Add `update_skill` with a required current version ID and a retry key.
Route it through the existing skill file API. Reject stale versions and
changed-input retries. Save the version and audit event together.

**Alternatives considered**

A separate write endpoint would duplicate the Skill Studio mutation path
and policy checks. This PR reuses that path instead.

**Roadmap alignment**

This work extends Skills Manager and Skill Studio, which are listed in
`ROADMAP.md`.

**Additional context**

The tool accepts a complete `SKILL.md`, not a partial patch. Callers
must read the current version before they edit it.

## What Changed

- Add optional version and retry fields to the existing skill file
update contract.
- Add a guarded API update with a stable retry receipt and attributed
audit event.
- Add `update_skill` to native and semantic runner tool catalogs, with
mode and policy gates.
- Add unit, integration, protocol, and semantic-tool regression
coverage.
- Document agent use and extend the OpenAPI request contract.

## Verification

- Focused tests and direct server and runner TypeScript checks passed
before this PR.
- `git diff --check` passed after the rebase onto `master`.
- CI passed on the latest PR head, including the full test matrix,
typecheck, and build. Local full typecheck and build stopped because
`cargo` is not installed. The local full test run ended without a
verdict.
- No dedicated end-to-end eval scenario was added or run. The protocol
coverage and semantic-tool test cover the new action deterministically.
- Reviewers can read a skill version, call `update_skill`, repeat the
same key, then try a stale version and a changed-input key. Only the
first edit must create a new version.

## Risks

- File writes and database transactions must stay in sync when a write
fails. The integration tests cover failed writes and retry behavior, but
CI must verify them on the PR head.
- Existing Skill Studio callers do not send the new optional
coordination fields. Their request shape remains valid.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex CLI assisted with this change. The runner did not expose
the exact model ID or context window. The agent used code execution and
repository 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; exact model ID and context window were not exposed)
- [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 tests; full suite
is pending CI)
- [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 (53 pass, 4 skip on the latest
head)
- [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>
2026-10-03 12:37:55 -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