PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-11-08 01:57:31 +01:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	75754ffb7a	fix: offer setup instead of Run for unfinished agents (#17976 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - An agent can have a saved record before its setup is complete. > - This record stays paused with the setup reason and cannot run. > - Its shared action controls still offer Run beside Finish setup. > - Run then produces a generic refusal instead of taking the user to setup. > - This change makes Finish setup replace Run for that state. > - The user returns to the saved agent and can run it after setup completes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? The header of a saved agent with unfinished setup offers Run. Clicking it produces "Agent is not invokable in its current state." Finish setup is a separate control that the user must discover. Expected behavior Show one Finish setup action in place of Run and Resume while the setup hold is present. Open the existing setup record with its selected runner. Restore normal controls when setup finishes. Steps to reproduce 1. Start creating an agent and save it before setup completes. 2. Open the agent from the roster to view its header. 3. Click Run and observe the generic refusal. Related: #17965 fixes the managed Runner connection-test result. This change fixes the controls for a saved setup record. No open duplicate was found in the title search. ## What Changed - Replace Run with one Finish setup action for a unfinished setup record. - Use the existing paused-state fallback when lifecycle details are absent. - Keep the saved agent ID and runner selection in the setup route. - Check unsaved changes before leaving the detail page. - Refresh pause reason and time with lifecycle state so completing setup in another tab restores Run without overwriting editable configuration. - Keep setup available when a caller hides Run or disables work actions. - Extend the agent action tests, onboarding browser journey and feature map. ## Verification - Red: three component regressions fail before the fix. The old UI keeps Run, lacks setup without lifecycle details, and skips the navigation guard. - Three more regressions fail before the preparation-state fix. Preparation, verification and pause transitions retain Finish setup; terminal states cannot reopen setup. - Green: 211 focused tests pass across agent actions, duplication, detail pages and saved setup. The final control suite passes 36 tests. - A real QueryClient, lifecycle hook and action-control regression fails before the pause-field refresh fix, then passes after it. The short-URL editable snapshot stays unchanged while the UUID lifecycle query restores Run. - UI typecheck and production build pass. Token and map checks pass. - The real Chromium onboarding journey passes on final source `67c4c59f6fbfc5bc8eca8f70e12b8dc1c3763f4f`: no Run or Resume, one Finish setup after reload, and the same saved agent reopens. The first attempt could not initialize the disposable PostgreSQL instance at the local shared-memory limit; no app assertion ran. After removing only a verified detached segment from this task’s completed browser run, the unchanged journey passes. No staging deployment is claimed. - A separate local integration branch combines this PR with the final write-recovery fixes from #17960. Its 36 action-control tests and the real onboarding browser journey pass too. This integration preview is not pushed to the PR branch. - All hosted CI gates pass on the final commit, including typecheck, tests, build and E2E. Apex is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. ## Risks - The change uses the existing setup pause reason through preparation and verification. Terminating and terminal records cannot reopen setup. Manual pauses retain Resume, and ready agents retain Run. - The API remains authoritative if state changes while the page is open. No admission, permission, account or credential rule changes. - The browser journey stops at setup configuration. It does not claim provider execution or deployment acceptance. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository inspection, tool use and code execution. The session does not expose its exact serving model ID 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 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>	2026-10-28 11:30:24 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	250429942e	fix(agents): report actionable lifecycle failure steps (#16418 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - New agents must pass setup and execution checks before they can run. > - The lifecycle worker saved the same retry message for every failure. > - Users could not identify the failed step or correct its configuration. > - The UI also described failed work as work still in progress. > - This pull request names the failed step and gives a safe corrective action. > - Users can identify configuration problems and understand automatic retries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A new hire showed a paused status and “The lifecycle step failed. Retry the operation.” Repeated retries did not explain the failure. A successful retry cleared the original error. This change cannot recover an error that an older server already cleared. Expected behavior Name the failed setup step. Give a useful action for known execution test failures. Explain automatic retry. Keep provider output and credentials out of lifecycle errors. Steps to reproduce 1. Create a disposable agent with an unavailable model or invalid execution command. 2. Open its profile while verification fails. 3. Inspect the error, correct the configuration, and select Retry now. 4. Confirm that the failure disappears after the agent becomes ready. Related change: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16155 shows pending setup progress in creation and assignment. This change improves the cause and action shown when setup fails. ## What Changed - Save the failed lifecycle phase and step in the existing lifecycle error field. - Classify authentication, model, command, directory, timeout, and response failures from execution test check codes. - Use fixed error messages. Do not retain raw provider messages, check details, or credentials. - Share the allowed failure codes with the lifecycle log. - Show failed-state labels and automatic retry guidance. Rename Retry to Retry now. - Extend worker, database, and UI regression coverage. Update the agent verification maps. ## Verification - Passed 105 focused tests across lifecycle diagnostics, database lifecycle commands, saved harness verification, and AgentLifecycleStatus. - Passed server TypeScript compilation with `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`. - Passed UI typecheck and production build. - Passed module boundary checks, token gates, character sync, map validation, and `git diff --check`. - Used Playwright to inspect the production component with a simulated model failure. Confirmed the failure text, retry guidance, retry callback, and recovered state. Captured a screenshot. This component check does not prove a live provider run. - Attempted `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. Both require Rust cargo, which is not installed in the local execution environment. - Started `pnpm test:run` locally. No final local suite result was recorded before handoff. The complete PR CI workflow passed. - Passed all latest-commit CI gates, including typecheck, build, general and serialized tests, Rust checks, and all eight browser test shards: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38726198774 - Greptile scored the latest commit 5/5 with no findings. There are no review threads to resolve. ## Risks - Failure classification depends on existing adapter check codes. Unknown codes use a safe fallback message. - A known code can describe only the checks reported by the adapter. - No database migration is required. The error field remains a string. - Retry schedules, leases, readiness, approvals, and budget controls keep their current behavior. - Full build verification requires a runner with Rust cargo. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used reasoning, code editing, browser checks, and tool execution. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or 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 Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-15 06:46:29 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	5badea4798	Use the agent lifecycle contract for plugin setup and status (#15391 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Some plugins must prepare resources before an agent can work. > - Those resources must stop or be removed when the agent pauses or terminates. > - The agent lifecycle module now owns these steps and their durable completion. > - Plugins use its required callback contract instead of a separate readiness query. > - This PR documents that contract and shows its progress and retry action on the agent page. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15631 Subsystem affected Required plugin lifecycle work and the agent detail page. Problem or motivation The lifecycle module exposes `onAgentLifecycle` and `agents.lifecycle.manage`, but the plugin authoring guide does not explain their use. The agent page displays legacy status. Setup therefore looks paused and offers Resume. Termination leaves the page before resource cleanup completes. Proposed solution Use the callback, admission guards, persisted state, and retry route supplied by the lifecycle module. Show pending phases and fixed host errors. Keep the detail page open during incomplete termination. Use lifecycle state for pause and resume controls. Alternatives considered A separate plugin readiness query would duplicate the module's state and admission rules. The final diff contains no readiness API, database commit hooks, or second admission check. ## What Changed - Document the manifest declaration, callback results, phase ordering, capability scope, retry behavior, and provider revision requirements. - Correct SDK comments for lifecycle, routing, and external object callbacks. - Show preparation, verification, pause, resume, termination, and cleanup progress from the existing agent fields. - Refresh pending steps every two seconds and other states every thirty seconds. Keep these reads separate from the agent record used by editable forms. Use the existing authorized retry route for failed steps. - Offer Pause during setup. Disable pause and resume while stop or cleanup is incomplete. Keep cleanup failures reachable on the detail page. Disable new work after termination starts. - Test required resource work across setup, pause, resume, and confirmed deletion. Test every worker callback phase, missing handlers, retry authorization, and UI behavior. ## Verification - Focused UI tests: 139 passed across lifecycle status, action buttons, API tests, and the configuration form. A regression preserves unsaved edits during an in-flight lifecycle refresh and a failed refresh. - Focused host and shared tests: 113 passed across lifecycle integration, retry authorization, plugin RPC, and manifest validation. The database suite used isolated local PostgreSQL 18 through a temporary loader outside the repository. - Module boundary tests: 11 passed. Module import/write checks and UI token gates passed. - Plugin SDK build, server direct TypeScript check, and UI TypeScript check passed. - `git diff --check` and an added-line secrets/private-reference scan passed. Fixtures use synthetic identities. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed using the existing local Rust toolchain. - Visually checked all six progress phases with the application components and styles. Captured preparation and cleanup failure screenshots from the production UI build with synthetic API data; artifacts are kept outside git. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after a native-runner failure reproduced in isolation: `native-session-resume.test.ts` / `archives a damaged prior epoch before completing guarded same-task replacement with real runnerd` returns a failed Codex fixture result instead of success. The native-runtime and runner trees are unchanged from the base. No full local test pass is claimed. - All latest-head CI checks passed, including test shards, verification, E2E, and the canary packaging check. Greptile reviewed commit `96473e03a` at 5/5 with no unresolved comments. ## Risks - Selected required plugins remain a dependency for lifecycle completion. The lifecycle module retains their requirements when a plugin is disabled or removed. - Plugins must make repeated provider operations safe and fence older revisions. Host revision checks do not cancel external requests. - Polling adds one agent-detail read every two seconds during pending work and every thirty seconds otherwise. - No schema change, private VM provider implementation, resource backfill, or deployment is included. No live provider test was run. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and command execution. The exact model revision and context window were not reported by the runtime. ## 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 - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run focused 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 risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-09 11:15:24 -07:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

Devin FoleyandPaperclip

75754ffb7a

fix: offer setup instead of Run for unfinished agents (#17976 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - An agent can have a saved record before its setup is complete.
> - This record stays paused with the setup reason and cannot run.
> - Its shared action controls still offer Run beside Finish setup.
> - Run then produces a generic refusal instead of taking the user to
setup.
> - This change makes Finish setup replace Run for that state.
> - The user returns to the saved agent and can run it after setup
completes.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

The header of a saved agent with unfinished setup offers Run. Clicking
it produces "Agent is not invokable in its current state." Finish setup
is a separate control that the user must discover.

**Expected behavior**

Show one Finish setup action in place of Run and Resume while the setup
hold is present. Open the existing setup record with its selected
runner. Restore normal controls when setup finishes.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Start creating an agent and save it before setup completes.
2. Open the agent from the roster to view its header.
3. Click Run and observe the generic refusal.

Related: #17965 fixes the managed Runner connection-test result. This
change fixes the controls for a saved setup record. No open duplicate
was found in the title search.

## What Changed

- Replace Run with one Finish setup action for a unfinished setup
record.
- Use the existing paused-state fallback when lifecycle details are
absent.
- Keep the saved agent ID and runner selection in the setup route.
- Check unsaved changes before leaving the detail page.
- Refresh pause reason and time with lifecycle state so completing setup
in another tab restores Run without overwriting editable configuration.
- Keep setup available when a caller hides Run or disables work actions.
- Extend the agent action tests, onboarding browser journey and feature
map.

## Verification

- Red: three component regressions fail before the fix. The old UI keeps
Run, lacks setup without lifecycle details, and skips the navigation
guard.
- Three more regressions fail before the preparation-state fix.
Preparation, verification and pause transitions retain Finish setup;
terminal states cannot reopen setup.
- Green: 211 focused tests pass across agent actions, duplication,
detail pages and saved setup. The final control suite passes 36 tests.
- A real QueryClient, lifecycle hook and action-control regression fails
before the pause-field refresh fix, then passes after it. The short-URL
editable snapshot stays unchanged while the UUID lifecycle query
restores Run.
- UI typecheck and production build pass. Token and map checks pass.
- The real Chromium onboarding journey passes on final source
`67c4c59f6fbfc5bc8eca8f70e12b8dc1c3763f4f`: no Run or Resume, one Finish
setup after reload, and the same saved agent reopens. The first attempt
could not initialize the disposable PostgreSQL instance at the local
shared-memory limit; no app assertion ran. After removing only a
verified detached segment from this task’s completed browser run, the
unchanged journey passes. No staging deployment is claimed.
- A separate local integration branch combines this PR with the final
write-recovery fixes from #17960. Its 36 action-control tests and the
real onboarding browser journey pass too. This integration preview is
not pushed to the PR branch.
- All hosted CI gates pass on the final commit, including typecheck,
tests, build and E2E. Apex is 5/5 with no unresolved findings.

## Risks

- The change uses the existing setup pause reason through preparation
and verification. Terminating and terminal records cannot reopen setup.
Manual pauses retain Resume, and ready agents retain Run.
- The API remains authoritative if state changes while the page is open.
No admission, permission, account or credential rule changes.
- The browser journey stops at setup configuration. It does not claim
provider execution or deployment acceptance.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository inspection, tool
use and code execution. The session does not expose its exact serving
model ID 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 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>

2026-10-28 11:30:24 -07:00

DottaandPaperclip

250429942e

fix(agents): report actionable lifecycle failure steps (#16418 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work.
> - New agents must pass setup and execution checks before they can run.
> - The lifecycle worker saved the same retry message for every failure.
> - Users could not identify the failed step or correct its
configuration.
> - The UI also described failed work as work still in progress.
> - This pull request names the failed step and gives a safe corrective
action.
> - Users can identify configuration problems and understand automatic
retries.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

A new hire showed a paused status and “The lifecycle step failed. Retry
the operation.” Repeated retries did not explain the failure. A
successful retry cleared the original error. This change cannot recover
an error that an older server already cleared.

**Expected behavior**

Name the failed setup step. Give a useful action for known execution
test failures. Explain automatic retry. Keep provider output and
credentials out of lifecycle errors.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Create a disposable agent with an unavailable model or invalid
execution command.
2. Open its profile while verification fails.
3. Inspect the error, correct the configuration, and select Retry now.
4. Confirm that the failure disappears after the agent becomes ready.

Related change: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16155
shows pending setup progress in creation and assignment. This change
improves the cause and action shown when setup fails.

## What Changed

- Save the failed lifecycle phase and step in the existing lifecycle
error field.
- Classify authentication, model, command, directory, timeout, and
response failures from execution test check codes.
- Use fixed error messages. Do not retain raw provider messages, check
details, or credentials.
- Share the allowed failure codes with the lifecycle log.
- Show failed-state labels and automatic retry guidance. Rename Retry to
Retry now.
- Extend worker, database, and UI regression coverage. Update the agent
verification maps.

## Verification

- Passed 105 focused tests across lifecycle diagnostics, database
lifecycle commands, saved harness verification, and
AgentLifecycleStatus.
- Passed server TypeScript compilation with `pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`.
- Passed UI typecheck and production build.
- Passed module boundary checks, token gates, character sync, map
validation, and `git diff --check`.
- Used Playwright to inspect the production component with a simulated
model failure. Confirmed the failure text, retry guidance, retry
callback, and recovered state. Captured a screenshot. This component
check does not prove a live provider run.
- Attempted `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. Both require Rust
cargo, which is not installed in the local execution environment.
- Started `pnpm test:run` locally. No final local suite result was
recorded before handoff. The complete PR CI workflow passed.
- Passed all latest-commit CI gates, including typecheck, build, general
and serialized tests, Rust checks, and all eight browser test shards:
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38726198774
- Greptile scored the latest commit 5/5 with no findings. There are no
review threads to resolve.

## Risks

- Failure classification depends on existing adapter check codes.
Unknown codes use a safe fallback message.
- A known code can describe only the checks reported by the adapter.
- No database migration is required. The error field remains a string.
- Retry schedules, leases, readiness, approvals, and budget controls
keep their current behavior.
- Full build verification requires a runner with Rust cargo.

## Model Used

- OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used reasoning, code editing, browser
checks, and tool execution. The runtime does not expose the exact
deployment ID or 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

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

2026-10-15 06:46:29 -05:00

Nicky LeachandPaperclip

5badea4798

Use the agent lifecycle contract for plugin setup and status (#15391 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Some plugins must prepare resources before an agent can work.
> - Those resources must stop or be removed when the agent pauses or
terminates.
> - The agent lifecycle module now owns these steps and their durable
completion.
> - Plugins use its required callback contract instead of a separate
readiness query.
> - This PR documents that contract and shows its progress and retry
action on the agent page.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs: #15631

**Subsystem affected**

Required plugin lifecycle work and the agent detail page.

**Problem or motivation**

The lifecycle module exposes `onAgentLifecycle` and
`agents.lifecycle.manage`, but the plugin authoring guide does not
explain their use. The agent page displays legacy status. Setup
therefore looks paused and offers Resume. Termination leaves the page
before resource cleanup completes.

**Proposed solution**

Use the callback, admission guards, persisted state, and retry route
supplied by the lifecycle module. Show pending phases and fixed host
errors. Keep the detail page open during incomplete termination. Use
lifecycle state for pause and resume controls.

**Alternatives considered**

A separate plugin readiness query would duplicate the module's state and
admission rules. The final diff contains no readiness API, database
commit hooks, or second admission check.

## What Changed

- Document the manifest declaration, callback results, phase ordering,
capability scope, retry behavior, and provider revision requirements.
- Correct SDK comments for lifecycle, routing, and external object
callbacks.
- Show preparation, verification, pause, resume, termination, and
cleanup progress from the existing agent fields.
- Refresh pending steps every two seconds and other states every thirty
seconds. Keep these reads separate from the agent record used by
editable forms. Use the existing authorized retry route for failed
steps.
- Offer Pause during setup. Disable pause and resume while stop or
cleanup is incomplete. Keep cleanup failures reachable on the detail
page. Disable new work after termination starts.
- Test required resource work across setup, pause, resume, and confirmed
deletion. Test every worker callback phase, missing handlers, retry
authorization, and UI behavior.

## Verification

- Focused UI tests: 139 passed across lifecycle status, action buttons,
API tests, and the configuration form. A regression preserves unsaved
edits during an in-flight lifecycle refresh and a failed refresh.
- Focused host and shared tests: 113 passed across lifecycle
integration, retry authorization, plugin RPC, and manifest validation.
The database suite used isolated local PostgreSQL 18 through a temporary
loader outside the repository.
- Module boundary tests: 11 passed. Module import/write checks and UI
token gates passed.
- Plugin SDK build, server direct TypeScript check, and UI TypeScript
check passed.
- `git diff --check` and an added-line secrets/private-reference scan
passed. Fixtures use synthetic identities.
- Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed using the existing
local Rust toolchain.
- Visually checked all six progress phases with the application
components and styles. Captured preparation and cleanup failure
screenshots from the production UI build with synthetic API data;
artifacts are kept outside git.
- Full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after a
native-runner failure reproduced in isolation:
`native-session-resume.test.ts` / `archives a damaged prior epoch before
completing guarded same-task replacement with real runnerd` returns a
failed Codex fixture result instead of success. The native-runtime and
runner trees are unchanged from the base. No full local test pass is
claimed.
- All latest-head CI checks passed, including test shards, verification,
E2E, and the canary packaging check. Greptile reviewed commit
`96473e03a` at 5/5 with no unresolved comments.

## Risks

- Selected required plugins remain a dependency for lifecycle
completion. The lifecycle module retains their requirements when a
plugin is disabled or removed.
- Plugins must make repeated provider operations safe and fence older
revisions. Host revision checks do not cancel external requests.
- Polling adds one agent-detail read every two seconds during pending
work and every thirty seconds otherwise.
- No schema change, private VM provider implementation, resource
backfill, or deployment is included. No live provider test was run.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code
editing, and command execution. The exact model revision and context
window were not reported by the runtime.

## 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
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket id
- [x] I have run focused 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 risks
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved comments
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

2026-10-09 11:15:24 -07:00