3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	2cc7992369	Share the external Runner lifecycle and add strict Muse contracts (#16444) ... Add the external Runner foundation with distinct Dot/Grok V6, canonical home-mode V7 and Muse V8 contracts. Keep generated schemas and profiles synchronized. Bound default question-answer command IDs in a disjoint namespace while preserving existing IDs and durable replay. Preserve canonical migration history and add normally generated, replay-safe Muse schema milestones with literal preview-history fixtures. Refs #16444. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-16 13:46:50 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	faa8e452c7	fix(tasks): stop repeated reminders for historical questions (#15392) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task questions remain saved so a person can answer them later. > - The composer moves an old question into history after a newer human message. > - Native completion still treated every pending question as a required response. > - This caused agents to demand an old answer after the person moved work forward. > - This pull request shares the historical-question rule across context and task execution. > - Agents can finish verified work while the original question remains answerable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15229, Refs #14613, Refs #13130. **What happened?** An agent repeatedly asked a person to answer a question that had moved into feed history. Completion feedback explicitly told the agent to request a response. The saved pending row also blocked task completion. **Expected behavior** A question before newer human direction remains answerable in the feed. Its pending state alone must not require another reminder or stop completed work. A new input blocker, an approval, or a configured review stage must keep its gate. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let a task agent create an ordinary question. 2. Dismiss the question and send a newer task message. 3. Let the agent finish the requested work and submit its completion report. 4. Observe a demand to answer the old question and a retained completion gate. ## What Changed - Add one company-scoped predicate for historical questions. Only later human comments count. Exclude agent attribution, run attribution, system notices, and untrusted source data. - Apply the predicate to completion feedback, native waits, finalization, commit validation, retry validation, blocked routing, and successful-run handoff. - Include question classification and guidance in heartbeat context and both native task-context tools. Add the guidance to fresh and resumed task prompts. - Replace automatic reminders for current ordinary questions with instructions to assess the real blocker, continue independent work, and withdraw obsolete questions through the existing API. - Preserve historical question rows during completion while cancelling their live native source runs through the existing post-commit and recovery paths. Let an authorized human answer them after completion without reopening work or creating a response wake. Preserve cancellation, current-input, approval, permission, credential, connection, and review gates. Add no dismissal storage or migration. - Document the rule in the execution contract and agent skill. Refresh generated capability source anchors. Add database-backed status, context, attribution, and governance regression tests. ## Verification - `pnpm build` passed. The server rebuild also passed after the lifecycle fix. Generated capability contract and inventory checks passed after the agent documentation update. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. Final `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` also passed after the last test additions. - Lifecycle and interaction regressions passed: 224 tests in 3 suites. Context and prompt tests also passed. Final historical-question cases passed (33 tests), native cancellation/recovery cases passed (6 tests), and the existing interaction/confirmation suites passed (72 tests). The full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after more than two hours with unrelated fixture/hook timeout failures; it did not pass. All 52 successful GitHub checks are green on the latest commit, including the complete test matrix; no checks are pending or failing. Greptile is 5/5 and both review threads are resolved. - Regression cases cover the old-question/new-human-message sequence, final task status, answering after completion with no wake, live-run cancellation and crash recovery, current input blockers, both task-context tools, API context, timestamp precision, attribution boundaries, and protected gates. ## Risks - A later human task message makes an earlier ordinary question historical even if its input is still missing. The agent must identify the current blocker and ask only for information that still prevents work. - Browser dismissal remains a local preference. Dismissal without a later human message is not recorded by this change. - No schema change or data migration. Completion retains ordinary historical questions; cancellation still expires them. A completed task accepts historical answers only from an authorized human and creates no response-delivery outbox row. Governed requests retain their gates. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository editing, code execution, and browser diagnostics. 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>	2026-10-06 20:33:13 -05:00
Dotta	9964b034bb	feat(runner): add hidden server PRP coordinator (#12176) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Paperclip Runner needs a narrow server trust boundary before an adapter can start it. > - The package has durable runner transport, but the server does not host or authorize that transport. > - Native persistence exists, but no writer connects PRP events to those records. > - A direct adapter must not enter this path by accident. > - This pull request adds a hidden, run-bound PRP server coordinator. > - The benefit is a recoverable server boundary that remains unavailable to normal execution. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11962 Refs #12129 Refs #12169 **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting. The change affects the runner package and server orchestration. **Problem or motivation** The server cannot authenticate runnerd, commit PRP events before ACK, authorize semantic tools, or enter native finalization from a durable runner result. The application must have this hidden boundary before a guarded adapter can use the runner. **Proposed solution** Add an authenticated PRP WebSocket authority and register it only for one exact persisted native Codex run. Bind each connection and event to the company, issue, agent, run, runner, session, turn, item, and verified runner identity. Commit each event before its cumulative ACK. Project only authorized same-task read tools. Rebuild the accepted result and finalization record from durable result and terminal events. **Alternatives considered** The server could expose a broad runner API key or route semantic calls through existing adapter endpoints. Those options grant too much authority and weaken replay recovery. The server could also add the user-facing adapter in this pull request. That option would mix rollout selection with the transport trust boundary and make legacy compatibility harder to review. **Roadmap alignment** This work supports the shipped enforced-outcomes, governed-tool, and self-healing-run milestones. It does not add a new roadmap surface. ## What Changed - Add the durable PRP server authority with one-use bootstrap tickets, reconnect leases, encrypted frames, bounded state, cumulative ACKs, and idempotent commands. - Add `/api/runner/v1/connect/:runId`. Derive its `ws://` or `wss://` URL from the configured Paperclip API URL. - Register one authority only after the coordinator verifies the complete native Codex run binding. - Commit validated PRP events to `heartbeat_run_events` before ACK. Reject source gaps and conflicting replays. - Rebuild accepted results and finalization records from durable result and terminal events. Enforce finalization owner leases and retry times. - Project five same-task read operations. Recheck run, agent, task, and company authority for each call. - Keep the route hidden. No adapter selects this coordinator, and no code starts runnerd. - Vendor the compiled runner TypeScript runtime into the server package while keeping the workspace package development-only for the server. - Document the package, database writer, run-log payload, and credential exclusions. ## Verification - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all`. All TypeScript protocol checks and 69 Vitest tests pass, including commit-before-ACK crash recovery. All 43 Rust unit tests and 13 Rust integration tests pass. Conformance and replay parity pass. - Run the focused server WebSocket, coordinator, package-build, and startup-wiring suites. All 26 tests pass, including a clean-checkout reproduction with the runner `dist` directory absent. - Run `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Run `pnpm test:run`. - Run `pnpm build`. - Confirm that the diff contains 19 files. Confirm that it contains no workflow or `pnpm-lock.yaml` change. ## Risks - The server installs the WebSocket route at startup. An unregistered or malformed run path fails closed and creates no native record. - Bootstrap tickets are one use. The private state directory uses mode `0700`, and the state file uses mode `0600`. The file stores derived authentication verifiers and never stores raw tickets or lease tokens. - The journal has explicit frame, command, event-window, and file-size bounds. A bound violation closes the runner connection or rejects the command. - A runner event reaches the database before its ACK. A crash between event commit and ACK causes a byte-equivalent replay, not a second logical effect. - The coordinator accepts only an existing queued or running native Codex row with exact company, task, agent, runner, session, and completion-contract ownership. - Existing direct adapters do not call this service. They keep their current execution, transcript, result, and finalization paths. - The server has no production dependency on the private runner package. Its build copies the compiled runtime into `server/dist`; the workspace link is development-only. This adds no external package and does not change the lockfile. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed. The model used agentic reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (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	2026-08-25 14:17:14 -05:00