mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-03 09:37:19 +01:00
6baec5181fc0aff914fbfc73d78a42ff917f4b13
5
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
24beb00575 |
feat(runner): add rich ACP transport and durable interaction foundation (#14430)
Add shared rich ACP transport, durable questions and permissions, verified provider packaging, and bounded activity and plan presentation. Keep Cursor, Copilot, and Pi pending their separate provider qualification. Persist interaction settlement before publication, fence failed writes until fresh recovery, and preserve owned-process cleanup. Incorporate reviewed mainline integration with extended harness coverage. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
43acbcc398 |
fix(runner): preserve sessions and complete question and approval continuations (#13655)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The native runner connects task state to provider sessions. > - Follow-up turns must retain provider memory and carry new user direction. > - Lost session IDs caused repeated context and extra input tokens. > - Native question answers and approval races could leave valid work blocked. > - This pull request repairs those paths and adds regression coverage. > - Agents can continue accepted work without repeating the conversation or losing the user's answer. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13574. That merged PR shortened continuation prompts and moved question instructions into tool documentation. This change preserves sessions and fixes failures exposed by broader testing. Related runtime work: #13408 and #13410. **What happened?** Native follow-up turns could lose the provider session ID. Completion guidance could replace the original task with its latest comment. Claude native questions could remain pending after the user answered. Approval during a running tool call could suspend the run before the tool response arrived. Onboarding and chat handoff instructions also caused repeated planning or missing plan documents. **Expected behavior** Reuse a valid provider session. Send only new events when that session already has the history. Preserve the task requirements and apply later user direction. Store the question answer and deliver it to the waiting run. Finish governed tool responses before suspending. Execute the accepted plan without asking for the same approval again. **Steps to reproduce** Run the continuation, local-session-integrity, first-task, and agent-chat suites with native Codex and Claude. Include provider-question-bridge, accept-while-running, and plan-handoff. **Paperclip version or commit** This branch is based on master |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6681104692 |
fix(runner): preserve provider identity and terminal failures (#13074)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The runner translates provider events into durable task execution.
> - Provider notifications can refer to another thread or a descendant.
> - Root validation treated these notifications as fatal, and later
layers could lose the original failure.
> - This pull request classifies event identity and preserves structured
terminal failures.
> - The server can then choose safe recovery without weakening tool
authority.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13038. This change incorporates the shared protocol-integrity and
bounded-cleanup prerequisites from that PR. It does not include the chat
feature. Related failure classification work: #13028.
**What happened?**
An informational provider notification for another thread could
terminate the root session. A failed stream could then become a
missing-result error and lose its cause.
**Expected behavior**
Ignore unrelated informational notices with bounded diagnostics. Reject
invalid authoritative events. Preserve the original failure code and
recovery meaning through cleanup.
**Steps to reproduce**
Run a native Codex task. Deliver a notification for an unrelated thread,
or close the stream after a structured failure. Inspect the root outcome
and recorded failure.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced before
|
||
|
Dotta
|
06f8773097 |
feat(runner): add Codex session driver (#12371)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The package now has bounded Codex transport, security, question, diff, value, and thread helpers > - Those isolated boundaries can now be composed into one provider session lifecycle > - The driver must preserve controller-owned identity, results, terminals, and recovery invariants > - Unsupported or mismatched provider traffic must fail closed without weakening legacy adapters > - This pull request adds only the Codex app-server driver and its package-local tests > - It does not expose or enable the Paperclip Runner adapter ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** `packages/paperclip-runner` Codex app-server session driver. **Problem or motivation** The runner needs a production-shaped Codex session implementation that turns provider facts into canonical PRP events while keeping task identity, semantic completion, runtime input, and recovery under controller authority. **Proposed solution** Compose the previously reviewed transport and normalization boundaries into a Codex-only harness driver with session open/resume, turns, streaming events, semantic tools, structured questions, goals, lineage, usage, cancellation, reconciliation, and deterministic persisted snapshots. **Alternatives considered** Keeping the full implementation in one initial transport pull request would obscure the trust boundaries. Adding the deferred ACPX or OpenCode paths here would also broaden the provider scope beyond the Codex-first series. **Roadmap alignment** This implements the Codex provider slice inside the package. It does not enable the runner adapter or change any existing direct adapter path. ## What Changed - Added the Codex app-server harness driver and session lifecycle. - Added controller-bound semantic completion and terminal handling. - Added runtime requests, structured questions, goals, lineage, usage, steering, interruption, and recovery. - Added workspace diff and file-reference projection. - Connected bounded/redacted provider data and notification identity checks. - Kept deferred provider identities and replacement behavior out of the Codex-only driver. - Added 62 focused driver cases covering lifecycle, security, recovery, and protocol failures. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` (34 files, 337 tests) - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - The focused Codex driver suite has 62 passing cases. ## Risks The main risks are accepting provider events from the wrong session, duplicating terminal facts, retaining unsafe provider data, or resuming a different session. Tests cover pre-turn, cross-thread, stale-turn, post-terminal, duplicate-result, cancellation, transport loss, provider identity, workspace, redaction, structured input, and recovery cases. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 and repository tool use. ## 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
ac7f6ec1a3 |
feat(runner): normalize Codex thread state (#12367)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Codex thread state arrives as provider-specific goals, lineage, notifications, and workspace paths > - That data must be normalized before the full driver can retain or project it > - Notifications also need run and thread binding so unrelated provider traffic is ignored > - This pull request adds pure normalization helpers before the full driver > - A later pull request will use these helpers for the Codex session lifecycle > - The benefit is a small, independently tested trust boundary for thread state ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** `packages/paperclip-runner` Codex thread-state normalization. **Problem or motivation** Provider thread data can contain unsupported goal shapes, unrelated notifications, unsafe workspace paths, or unbounded response values. Passing it through directly would weaken run isolation and durable-data bounds. **Proposed solution** Normalize goals and lineage into stable runner shapes, accept notifications only when their run and thread identities match, constrain workspace references to the assigned root, and retain only bounded safe provider responses. **Alternatives considered** Keeping these rules embedded in the full driver would make the trust boundary harder to review and test independently. **Roadmap alignment** This supports the Codex-first experimental runner. It does not enable the runner adapter. ## What Changed - Added normalized Codex thread goals and lineage. - Added run- and thread-bound notification filtering. - Added safe workspace-relative path and stat projection. - Added bounded provider-response retention. - Added focused normalization and isolation tests. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - The focused thread-normalization test has 3 passing cases. ## Risks The main risk is retaining data from the wrong provider thread or accepting an unsafe workspace reference. Tests cover identity binding, path normalization, response bounds, goal parsing, and lineage projection. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 and repository tool use. ## 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |