PaperClipAI

4,610 Commits 1,311 Branches 2,105 Tags

3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	51b0e01ead	fix: resume saved user messages after execution recovery (#13270 ) Preserve verified native process-stop evidence and retry saved user messages through normal continuation admission after recovery cleanup. Show the current wait reason and serialize delivery so a saved message starts one fresh turn. Validated with 410 focused tests, typecheck, build, token gates, all PR CI checks, and Greptile 5/5. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-11 17:12:55 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	0d8bbf7cf4	refactor(server): move the queued-comment queue mutations into the wake-queue module (#13145 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server coordinates issue execution and agent wake events > - Queued comment mutations belong to the wake queue that owns their state > - Route-local database writes split queue rules across two layers > - This pull request moves those mutations into the wake-queue module and keeps route authorization and response mapping > - The benefit is one transaction boundary with company-scoped writes and a shared checked response contract ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The queued-comment edit, reorder, and discard endpoints write queue state directly from the route layer. Subsystem affected server/ — REST API and orchestration services. Current behavior The route layer owns database transactions, locks, queue writes, and wake-row writes for queued comments. Proposed behavior The wake-queue module owns these operations. The routes keep authorization, input checks, error mapping, and response mapping. Reason and benefit The module gives all queued-comment callers one transaction boundary and applies company predicates to every adapter read and write. Breaking changes None. The endpoints keep their existing paths and response behavior. ## What Changed - Move queued-comment edit, reorder, and discard operations into the wake-queue module. - Add company predicates to seven queue writes. - Use the shared queue contract type for mutation responses. - Add module tests and route tests for the moved operations. ## Verification - `server/src/modules/wake-queue`: 128 tests pass across 6 files. - `server/src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts`: 19 tests pass. - The server TypeScript check reports the same 141 pre-existing errors before and after this change. - GitHub Actions must pass the required pull-request checks. ## Risks The change moves transaction and lock ownership across module boundaries. The new adapter, use-case, and route tests cover the moved behavior. No database schema changes occur. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, current agent runtime, tool use and code 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] 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>	2026-09-10 08:41:59 -07:00
DottaandDev Agent	25cf079ec5	feat(runner): add Codex-native application integration (#12591 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner package is useful only when the application can start, observe, and recover a native Codex run safely. > - Existing direct adapters must keep their current execution and finalization paths. > - The application boundary therefore needs additive persistence, authorization, coordination, and recovery behind an explicit experimental adapter. > - This pull request adds that Codex-only boundary without activating generalized providers, remote environments, or the later task/SDK surfaces. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Shared contracts, database persistence, adapter utilities, server native-runtime services, and the experimental Paperclip Runner adapter. Problem or motivation The already-landed runner package has a qualified Codex path, but the application needs durable native-run state, guarded runtime selection, authenticated coordination, tool security, finalization, and recovery before the experimental adapter can be exercised safely. Proposed solution Add a Codex-only `paperclip_runner` application path behind the existing default-off native-runner setting. Bind native state and coordination to company/run identity, preserve persisted-run recovery, and leave every direct adapter on its existing legacy execution path. Alternatives considered The earlier stack boundary introduced a generalized executor and remote-environment lifecycle here. That made this PR depend on implementations in higher PRs and changed reusable sandbox behavior globally. Those pieces are now deferred together to #12592. Roadmap alignment ROADMAP.md does not list a conflicting native-runner integration project. This change adds the application boundary for the existing Runner architecture. ## What Changed - Added native run/result/finalization/provider-trace persistence, shared validators, and idempotent migration/replay coverage. - Added guarded Codex-only runtime selection, authenticated PRP coordination, recovery, finalization, and interaction services. - Added run/company-bound tool-gateway authorization, credential redaction, SSRF protections, and replay-safe behavior. - Added the explicit `paperclip_runner` adapter behind the default-off rollout setting. - Preserved legacy answered-question wake projection and direct-adapter execution/finalization paths. - Hardened cancellation so only owned in-memory child processes are signaled; persisted recycled PIDs/process groups are never trusted. - Retained the narrow Claude ACPX isolated-context security follow-up discovered after #12590. - Deferred the generalized executor, provider ingress, remote lifecycle, SDK/lab/eval work, release-process changes, and lockfile. ## Verification - Changed-file delta against `master`: 133 files. - GitHub Actions is the authoritative verification environment for this PR. - Full CI, security, and Greptile review will run on this lowest unmerged stack PR. - Local tests/build/typecheck were not run because this checkout is resource constrained. - Static diff/reference checks pass, and `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged. ## Risks - This touches central heartbeat and agent-route code, so legacy compatibility is the primary risk. - Runtime selection remains Codex-only and explicit; direct Codex, Claude, OpenCode, process, HTTP, and plugin adapters remain on their existing paths. - Fresh native starts fail closed while the rollout flag is off; persisted native records remain readable and recoverable. - Cancellation, company/run binding, tool calls, status decisions, and completion writes are guarded or replay-safe. > 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. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with repository tools, code execution, and parallel agent review. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — GitHub Actions is authoritative for this resource-constrained checkout - [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 risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI and security gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open actionable findings - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge ## Stack - Position: 3 of 5 overall; lowest of 3 currently unmerged - Base: `master` - Previous: [#12590](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12590), qualified Claude ACPX runtime — merged - Next: [#12592](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12592), generalized Codex executor, task experience, and developer SDKs --------- Co-authored-by: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-31 14:38:38 -05:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

DottaandPaperclip

51b0e01ead

fix: resume saved user messages after execution recovery (#13270 )

Preserve verified native process-stop evidence and retry saved user messages through normal continuation admission after recovery cleanup. Show the current wait reason and serialize delivery so a saved message starts one fresh turn.

Validated with 410 focused tests, typecheck, build, token gates, all PR CI checks, and Greptile 5/5.

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

2026-09-11 17:12:55 -05:00

Nicky LeachandPaperclip

0d8bbf7cf4

refactor(server): move the queued-comment queue mutations into the wake-queue module (#13145 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The server coordinates issue execution and agent wake events
> - Queued comment mutations belong to the wake queue that owns their
state
> - Route-local database writes split queue rules across two layers
> - This pull request moves those mutations into the wake-queue module
and keeps route authorization and response mapping
> - The benefit is one transaction boundary with company-scoped writes
and a shared checked response contract

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

The queued-comment edit, reorder, and discard endpoints write queue
state directly from the route layer.

**Subsystem affected**

server/ — REST API and orchestration services.

**Current behavior**

The route layer owns database transactions, locks, queue writes, and
wake-row writes for queued comments.

**Proposed behavior**

The wake-queue module owns these operations. The routes keep
authorization, input checks, error mapping, and response mapping.

**Reason and benefit**

The module gives all queued-comment callers one transaction boundary and
applies company predicates to every adapter read and write.

**Breaking changes**

None. The endpoints keep their existing paths and response behavior.

## What Changed

- Move queued-comment edit, reorder, and discard operations into the
wake-queue module.
- Add company predicates to seven queue writes.
- Use the shared queue contract type for mutation responses.
- Add module tests and route tests for the moved operations.

## Verification

- `server/src/modules/wake-queue`: 128 tests pass across 6 files.
- `server/src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts`: 19 tests
pass.
- The server TypeScript check reports the same 141 pre-existing errors
before and after this change.
- GitHub Actions must pass the required pull-request checks.

## Risks

The change moves transaction and lock ownership across module
boundaries. The new adapter, use-case, and route tests cover the moved
behavior. No database schema changes occur.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, current agent runtime, tool use and code 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] 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>

2026-09-10 08:41:59 -07:00

DottaandDev Agent

25cf079ec5

feat(runner): add Codex-native application integration (#12591 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The runner package is useful only when the application can start,
observe, and recover a native Codex run safely.
> - Existing direct adapters must keep their current execution and
finalization paths.
> - The application boundary therefore needs additive persistence,
authorization, coordination, and recovery behind an explicit
experimental adapter.
> - This pull request adds that Codex-only boundary without activating
generalized providers, remote environments, or the later task/SDK
surfaces.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Subsystem affected**

Shared contracts, database persistence, adapter utilities, server
native-runtime services, and the experimental Paperclip Runner adapter.

**Problem or motivation**

The already-landed runner package has a qualified Codex path, but the
application needs durable native-run state, guarded runtime selection,
authenticated coordination, tool security, finalization, and recovery
before the experimental adapter can be exercised safely.

**Proposed solution**

Add a Codex-only `paperclip_runner` application path behind the existing
default-off native-runner setting. Bind native state and coordination to
company/run identity, preserve persisted-run recovery, and leave every
direct adapter on its existing legacy execution path.

**Alternatives considered**

The earlier stack boundary introduced a generalized executor and
remote-environment lifecycle here. That made this PR depend on
implementations in higher PRs and changed reusable sandbox behavior
globally. Those pieces are now deferred together to #12592.

**Roadmap alignment**

ROADMAP.md does not list a conflicting native-runner integration
project. This change adds the application boundary for the existing
Runner architecture.

## What Changed

- Added native run/result/finalization/provider-trace persistence,
shared validators, and idempotent migration/replay coverage.
- Added guarded Codex-only runtime selection, authenticated PRP
coordination, recovery, finalization, and interaction services.
- Added run/company-bound tool-gateway authorization, credential
redaction, SSRF protections, and replay-safe behavior.
- Added the explicit `paperclip_runner` adapter behind the default-off
rollout setting.
- Preserved legacy answered-question wake projection and direct-adapter
execution/finalization paths.
- Hardened cancellation so only owned in-memory child processes are
signaled; persisted recycled PIDs/process groups are never trusted.
- Retained the narrow Claude ACPX isolated-context security follow-up
discovered after #12590.
- Deferred the generalized executor, provider ingress, remote lifecycle,
SDK/lab/eval work, release-process changes, and lockfile.

## Verification

- Changed-file delta against `master`: 133 files.
- GitHub Actions is the authoritative verification environment for this
PR.
- Full CI, security, and Greptile review will run on this lowest
unmerged stack PR.
- Local tests/build/typecheck were not run because this checkout is
resource constrained.
- Static diff/reference checks pass, and `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged.

## Risks

- This touches central heartbeat and agent-route code, so legacy
compatibility is the primary risk.
- Runtime selection remains Codex-only and explicit; direct Codex,
Claude, OpenCode, process, HTTP, and plugin adapters remain on their
existing paths.
- Fresh native starts fail closed while the rollout flag is off;
persisted native records remain readable and recoverable.
- Cancellation, company/run binding, tool calls, status decisions, and
completion writes are guarded or replay-safe.

> 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.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with repository tools, code execution, and
parallel agent review.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR
following the relevant issue template
- [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
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — GitHub Actions is
authoritative for this resource-constrained checkout
- [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 risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI and security gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open actionable findings
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge

## Stack

- Position: 3 of 5 overall; lowest of 3 currently unmerged
- Base: `master`
- Previous:
[#12590](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12590), qualified
Claude ACPX runtime — merged
- Next: [#12592](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12592),
generalized Codex executor, task experience, and developer SDKs

---------

Co-authored-by: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing>

2026-08-31 14:38:38 -05:00