4 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	aa8fc86331	feat(connections): prefer native apps and ask users to choose external providers (#13941) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Connections give agents governed access to external services. > - Native connections should remain the first choice for a supported app. > - Other apps may be available through an external MCP provider. > - The user must know which external provider handles the connection and choose it before setup. > - This pull request adds ranked alternatives and server-authored instructions to connection search. > - Agents can follow the returned instructions while Paperclip validates saved choices and access. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #13879, which fixed inline MCP provider setup. This PR adds discovery and provider selection on top of that work. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: shared connection contracts, server search and intent services, native runtime, CLI, inline setup UI, and evals. **Problem or motivation** An agent cannot offer a clear external-provider choice when Paperclip has no native connection for an app. Adding provider-specific branches to the core prompt would make those instructions harder to maintain. **Proposed solution** Prefer a native connection. Otherwise return verified alternatives in Composio, Arcade, Executor, Zapier order. Include an external-service disclosure, a question with None, and the next instruction in the search result. Validate the saved human choice before creating a selected fallback setup card. Reuse existing provider accounts and verify underlying app access separately. **Alternatives considered** Do not silently choose a provider. Do not claim that broad execution tools prove support for every app. Reuse existing questions and connection intents rather than add another connection model. **Roadmap alignment** Extends the existing MCP Tool Gateway & Apps and Agent evals & feedback capabilities. The MCP aggregators experiment remains the gate. No duplicate provider-routing PR was found in the public search. ## What Changed - Add a dated support index and authorized cached-tool evidence for external routes. - Return provider questions and next-step instructions from `connections_search`. - Preserve pending choices and declines across continuation. Validate company, task, agent, human, app, and current route eligibility. - Carry the selected app into new setup and account reuse, validate explicit provider requests against persisted human messages, and distinguish provider readiness from app authorization. - Sync native, MCP, REST, and CLI contracts. Keep core agent instructions provider-neutral. - Add production-component Storybooks, focused database tests, and three real-agent browser eval cases. - Record the plan, observed failures, fixes, passing evidence, and acceptance limits. ## Verification - Latest head `586f0e6cd`: 54 checks passed, 2 skipped; Greptile 5/5 and all review threads resolved. - After rebasing on master `18dac1e1e`: 64 focused shared, validator, route-contract, and database tests passed; server typecheck passed. - Embedded-browser test drive on the rebased head: native Jira card, HubSpot external-provider question, Arcade account reuse, one actual MCP read against a local synthetic fixture, reload persistence, and None preventing further calls. A real OpenAI-backed agent performed discovery and continuation. - UX observation: the agent initially combined mutually exclusive request fields; the server rejected it and the agent recovered without changing access. This extra retry remains visible in the transcript. - After rebase: 23 focused eval grader/catalog tests, affected TypeScript checks, token gates, production UI build, and Storybook build passed. Full local tests are intentionally excluded at the maintainer's request. - Before rebase: four browser/real-agent attempts passed: native Jira, None, and reuse of the second provider on two Codex profiles. - Browser evals used an isolated deterministic MCP fixture through the real Paperclip gateway. They do not prove production compatibility with all four providers. - Review `Apps / Connections / Provider choice` in Storybook. Choose Arcade, continue through Access, and verify the app name, external-service disclosure, and URL configuration. - The detailed verification report is `doc/connections/2026-09-23-aggregator-routing-verification.md`. ## Risks - The public support index is finite and can age. Account capability and app authorization still require verification after selection. - Existing installed-tool permissions remain in effect. Provider choice is not a new execution permission boundary. An early Mini attempt skipped search; clearer provider-neutral instructions made the targeted rerun pass. This is not a measured reliability rate. - Explicit requests skip provider confirmation only when a clear persisted human message or saved provider choice supports them. Other phrasing falls back to confirmation; the agent query alone is not consent. These routes do not add tool permissions. - No database migration or legacy Composio broker is added. Real-provider acceptance remains separate from fixture proof. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser tools. The exact deployment variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Product evals separately used the repository's primary Codex and Codex Mini profiles; those agents supplied test behavior, not independent provider compatibility proof. ## 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>	2026-09-24 16:36:49 -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
3 people	4577d10029	fix: prepare everyday artifact and Codex sandbox prerequisites in CI (#13516) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The runner E2E workflow executes paid everyday workflow stories on disposable CI hosts > - The everyday artifact oracle requires a pinned Python image and fails closed when it is absent > - Fresh CI hosts did not prepare this image before the paid cell, so project stories failed during preflight > - This pull request prepares and verifies the pinned image before the affected everyday cells > - The benefit is reliable artifact isolation checks on fresh trusted CI hosts ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Fresh trusted CI runners did not have the pinned Python artifact oracle image. **Expected behavior:** The workflow prepares and verifies the pinned image before an everyday project story starts. **Steps to reproduce:** Run an everyday project story on a fresh CI host without the image cached. The `everyday-artifact.py --preflight` check fails before task creation. **Paperclip version or commit:** `master` at `bd51f157e`. **Deployment mode:** Other: GitHub Actions trusted paid workflow. ## What Changed - Add a matrix-gated CI step for everyday project and recovery cells. - Check Docker, pull the fixed digest with bounded timeouts, and verify the exact repo digest. - Apply the existing Codex sandbox preparation to both native Codex profiles, including the mini profile. - Add workflow security assertions for ordering, condition, digest, timeouts, and secret isolation. - Document that CI prepares the pinned oracle image. - Check provisioning eligibility against every catalog cell, and scope the Daytona registry inspection assertion to the Daytona image job. ## Verification - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit` — 24 files and 222 tests passed. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts workflow-security.test.ts` — 10 tests passed. - Python artifact oracle calibration — 12/12 passed. - `git diff --check` — passed. ## Risks Low risk. The image step runs only for everyday cells that execute the artifact preflight. The Codex setup now covers both native Codex profiles. It uses a fixed public image digest and has no provider credentials. ## Model Used OpenAI gpt-5.6-luna (implementation subagent) and gpt-6-astra (review fixes and orchestration), using code execution and repository tools. Context window size is not exposed by 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> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <paperclip@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-16 07:49:48 -05:00
3 people	cceeb0aa66	test(runner): add everyday workflow evaluation harness (#13474) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The native runner must support project work, delegation, hiring, and service access. > - Browser tests exposed lost connection access, rejected helper events, and stalled recovery. > - Some eval failures also came from incorrect fixtures and decision controls. > - This pull request fixes those paths and adds eight everyday workflow stories. > - The tests retain observed failures and verify delivered files independently. > - The benefit is repeatable evidence for common user tasks and their remaining gaps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: #13404 contains earlier workflow fixes. #13300 and #13470 changed the CI contracts used by the harness security tests. Merged companion: [paperclip-evals#22](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/22). **What happened?** Native ACPX sessions did not receive the assigned connection gateway. Codex helper events could arrive before their spawn receipt and fail thread validation. A parent continuation could take a shared workspace before its child retried. A failed native continuation could leave the task status without a clear recovery blocker. The eval harness also confused tool approvals with new connection requests and could reject a valid delegated download. **Expected behavior** Keep assigned gateway access and its approval checks. Verify helper lineage before accepting helper progress. Let a waiting child proceed before automatic parent recovery. Preserve a failed task's recovery ownership. Grade the actual requested workflow and its delivered files. **Steps to reproduce** Run the everyday workflow suite with the native Codex and Claude profiles. Exercise service approval, connection refusal, delegated project work, and teammate reuse. The commands and case requirements are in `tests/runner-e2e/EVERYDAY-WORKFLOWS.md`. Use `pnpm test:runner-recovery` for controlled crash and replacement cases. ## What Changed - Pass the scoped connection gateway binding through the native ACPX host and sidecar. - Recognize Codex helper lineage from parent metadata and spawn receipts. Verify early helper events with `thread/read`. Keep helper events separate from root completion authority. - Guide agents to use persistent hiring, child tasks, dependency records, and a blocked handoff while waiting for a child. - Defer automatic parent recovery while a child has an active execution path in the same shared workspace. Allow parent recovery when the child needs review. - Record Blocked status and recovery evidence when a failed native continuation needs reconciliation, including existing active or escalated incidents. Preserve their owner and retry budget. - Add eight browser-driven workflow cases. Use real decision controls, explicit child feedback delivery, managed hiring credentials, and independent ZIP checks inside a bounded Docker sandbox. Verify sandbox availability before task creation. Record screenshot SHA-256 at capture. - Keep runner crash probes in controlled recovery tests. Preserve the original failure when cleanup also fails. - Display missing accounting and replay revisions as unavailable. Align harness security assertions with the approved CI changes. - Make the channel-rejection browser fixture bind its file after the send captures its payload. This prevents live refresh from removing the file before the simulated race. ## Verification - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after merging current master. - Runner E2E typecheck passed. Harness unit tests passed: 216/216. - Wake-queue database tests passed: 55/55. The two added existing-incident tests failed before the fix and pass after it. - Docker artifact calibration passed: 12/12. Host-file and host-loopback isolation tests failed before the fix and pass after it. Read-only delivery and output limits are also verified. - Full `pnpm build` passed. Targeted recovery tests passed: 83/83. - The channel-rejection browser test passed five consecutive runs after fixing the fixture race found in CI. - Local general-server (12,351 tests), UI (6,250), CLI (485), and workspace package groups passed. The monolithic run stopped at an unchanged lock-heartbeat fixture race; the isolated workspace group passed on rerun (shared: 747/747). A separate local serialized run passed 97 files before two socket errors in the unchanged issue-list route suite; that suite passed 15/15 on isolated rerun. These local full commands did not finish uninterrupted; the complete CI matrix below covers the remaining suites. - Final head `0fb293733fe307be7e6667ae8f1364077d0c6455`: **34 successful checks, 2 expected skips**, including every server/workspace shard, browser shard, native runner verification, build, and typecheck. [Final CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34989136700). - Greptile reviewed this exact head at **5/5**; all review threads are resolved. Both Superagent security checks are successful. - ACPX credential-boundary tests passed: 118/118. Superagent accepted the runner/sidecar versus provider-environment trace and cleared its finding. - The latest paid local campaign on source `f6a2fdf7ac2af859826a2ae627ff4125a5478529` passed 22/24 cases: Sol 8/8, Claude 7/8, Mini 7/8. These results predate the merge with current master. - The two remaining failures are in `hire-reuse`: Claude exceeded the attempt deadline during final review; Mini made invalid deliverable tool calls and remained Blocked. - Six Daytona cases were not run because the matching immutable runner image was unavailable. This PR does not claim new remote model results. ## Risks The changes affect connection admission, helper identity, and recovery scheduling. Assigned gateway grants and user approval still govern service calls. The workspace admission gate still exists; the broader folder-sync design is separate work. Provider behavior can still cause the two recorded hiring failures. No database migration is required. Paid cases are opt-in and have bounded attempt deadlines. Project stories now require Docker and the documented pinned Python image on the harness host. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6-astra` performed implementation, diagnosis, and substantive review. OpenAI `gpt-5.6-luna` assisted with verification, PR preparation, and review tracking. Both used repository tools and code execution. Context-window sizes were not recorded. ## 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 (focused checks and isolated reruns; full-run limitations are documented above) - [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: OpenAI GPT-5.6 Luna <noreply@openai.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-15 11:04:16 -05:00