PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	6fe8e30625	feat(apps): add Railway connection and governed deployment tools (#13415 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Apps gives agents governed access to external resources. > - Operators need to inspect Railway services, read logs, deploy code, and run container commands. > - Railway offers hosted MCP with OAuth, but broad remote actions hide their internal operations. > - This PR adds a branded connection and fixed direct operations through the existing gateway. > - Separate SSH keys enable container commands under the same grants and policies. > - Operators can require approval for an action and inspect the resulting audit record. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Apps catalog, connection setup, gateway execution, and connection documentation. Problem or motivation Agents need Railway access through Paperclip. Operators need to grant and revoke that access, inspect available actions, and govern deployment and container operations without giving agents provider credentials. Proposed solution Reuse hosted MCP OAuth, vault storage, catalog discovery, grants, and the gateway. Probe the actual credential before enabling fixed GraphQL operations. Use a dedicated grant-owned SSH key for bounded container commands. Alternatives considered A catalog entry alone cannot execute the missing operations. The hosted general agent has opaque internal effects. An unrestricted CLI runtime can bypass action policy and inherit ambient credentials. Roadmap alignment This extends the existing MCP Tool Gateway & Apps path and the Connected Apps direction in ROADMAP.md. It does not add a plugin or parallel connection service. Related PRs #311, #939, and #7861 concern hosting Paperclip on Railway. They do not add this outbound Apps connection. The separate shared agent-picker fix is #13414 and is not included here. ## What Changed - Add the generated Railway catalog entry, official marks, provenance, and OAuth setup guidance. - Add fixed service/deployment status, bounded logs, and redeploy/restart/rollback tools. Block source deployment until the provider can atomically bind the approved repository and commit. - Verify API access with an explicit workspace before exposing direct tools. - Add grant-owned SSH key setup and a bounded runner with host verification, target checks, isolated state, and cleanup. - Block the opaque hosted railway-agent and accept-deploy actions. Preserve normal Allowed defaults and Ask-first policies for other actions. - Quarantine new or changed Railway schemas after initial discovery, including reconnect. - Add provider, lifecycle, gateway, SSH, UI, and browser fixtures. Document setup, limitations, and the release checklist. ## Verification - Security follow-up: removed the unsafe source-deployment mutation. Direct calls and old active catalog entries are denied before any upstream request, including normalized aliases. Refresh marks retired entries disabled. All 386 focused Railway, catalog and gateway tests passed, and server TypeScript checking passed. Full [GitHub CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35139421144) passed on `d86530ab9`, including typecheck, build, all tests, runner checks, and browser tests. Superagent passed and confirmed the P2 fix. Greptile reviewed the same commit at 5/5 with no findings. - CI follow-up: fixed the missing Railway SSH operation in the OpenAPI document, including its request schema, operator-only authentication, and error responses. The failure reproduced locally before the fix; all 403 selected API, Railway, catalog, and artwork tests passed after it. Synced current master and resolved the catalog/artwork conflicts. - After rebase: 440 focused provider, lifecycle, gateway, catalog, and container-panel tests passed. AppDetail and AppsConnect passed another 196 tests. - Full typecheck, build, token gates, and the gallery browser check passed after rebase. - During implementation, full build and the gallery browser check passed. Shared generic-MCP fixtures covered OAuth callback/state/issuer binding and failure paths. - Local live consent and tools/list succeeded. There were 44 active hosted actions and two blocked actions. A workspace-bound API probe and direct project/service/environment reads succeeded. The inspected project had no deployed services. No provider mutation ran. - Full GitHub CI passed on commit `303340f19`, including all server/workspace test groups, typecheck, build, runtime verification, release dry run, and browser tests. The original local full-run attempt was incomplete; the complete automated suite is now verified in CI. Manual review: connect Railway, review the actual actions, install for an agent, and run a resource read through the gateway. Choose Ask first before testing a deployment mutation. Configure a dedicated key only when container access is needed. Release qualification is still open. Live agent gateway reads/logs, rejected and approved deployment calls, refresh/revoke, public HTTPS consent, and SSH enrollment/commands/cleanup need an authorized disposable service. The passing API diagnostic does not replace those tests. See doc/connections/RAILWAY.md and RAILWAY-REVIEW.md. ## Risks Overall risk is medium. New runtime behavior is gated to Railway connections, but the PR changes shared catalog, credential lifecycle, and gateway code. A regression in those paths can affect other Apps connections. The highest-impact operations are Railway deployments and container commands. - Provider consent can authorize an entire workspace. Catalog labels are not local resource allowlists. Direct tools check target membership, and provider permissions still apply. - Shell commands have broad internal authority. Action policy cannot approve each internal shell step. Timeouts close the local connection but cannot guarantee remote child-process termination. - Log and command output may contain application secrets that pattern redaction cannot recognize. - Source deployment is unavailable until the provider supports atomic repository/commit binding. Existing deployments can still be redeployed, restarted or rolled back. - No database migration is required. Rollback can remove promotion and direct dispatch while preserving connection data and the generic MCP path. - Live Railway qualification must still pass before release acceptance. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with code execution and browser testing. An independent read-only security agent reviewed the local implementation. The exact serving model ID and context window were 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>	2026-09-16 13:54:44 -07:00
Devin Foley	d08abcba15	ci: cut PR wall clock from ~16 to ~6 minutes (#13521 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Every pull request runs the Trusted PR CI workflow before merge > - The test suites roughly tripled in six weeks, and shard balance did not keep up, so PR runs crept from ~4 to ~17 minutes > - Slow CI delays every merge and every contributor > - This pull request rebalances the shards from fresh measurements, splits the largest test files, reuses the Rust build cache in three more jobs, and takes the policy job off the critical path > - The benefit is a PR wall clock near 6 minutes with the same coverage ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? PR CI wall clock. A typical green run took 16-17 minutes. Two months ago it took about 4 minutes. Subsystem affected The Trusted PR CI workflow (`.github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml`), the shard-duration manifests, the vitest shard runner scripts, the `paperclip-runner` package scripts, and the dry-run branch of `release.sh`. Current behavior The shard-duration manifests were stale. The general-server manifest had durations for ~400 of 649 suites. The e2e manifest was missing 14 of 29 specs. Stale median weights made shard steps range 417s-806s (server) and 277s-745s (e2e). Three jobs each paid a ~3m40s cold cargo release build. Every test lane waited ~60s for the policy job before it could start. Proposed behavior All lanes finish in a narrow ~200-290s band. The manifests carry fresh measured durations for every suite. The three largest test files are split so no single file caps a shard. The Rust cache restore runs in every job that builds the Runner binary. Test lanes start as soon as the gate resolves. Reason and benefit Merges stop waiting on CI. The projected wall clock is ~6 minutes for the same test coverage. ## What Changed - Rebuild `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` (646 suites) and `scripts/e2e-shard-durations.json` (all specs) from per-suite completion timestamps in runs 35036001734 and 35024948947. - Move the PR server lane to the release-verify shape: `general-server-without-chat` across twelve duration-balanced shards, plus the chat integration suite split by collected test location across three dedicated lanes. - Split `tests/e2e/chat-adapters-ui.spec.ts` into `-providers` and `-messaging` specs, and `tests/e2e/agent-chat.spec.ts` into `-sessions` and `-projects` specs. Each pair shares fixtures through a `.shared.ts` module. Playwright collects the same test sets (39 and 20 tests). - Raise e2e shards to eight and serialized shards to nine. - Run the runner package's `check:all` as four matrix lanes: `check:static`, `check:runner`, and two native vitest `--shard` halves. The union is exactly `check:all`. - Add the read-only Rust cache restore (toolchain pin, `save-if: false`) to the Canary Dry Run, Build, and Typecheck jobs. - Make release.sh preview publish payloads concurrently in batches of eight during `--dry-run`. The real publish path stays strictly serial. - Drop the policy-job lockfile artifact chain. Each lane installs with `--frozen-lockfile` and falls back to an inline `--resolution-only` regeneration. The policy job stays a required check through the `verify` and `e2e` aggregates. - Update the shard-count mirrors and workflow assertions in the partition and gate tests. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` — 30 pass. - `node --test '.github/scripts/tests/'*.test.mjs` — 410 pass. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-dry-run-notes.test.mjs` — 42 pass. - `playwright test --list` collects 39 tests across the chat-adapters split and 20 across the agent-chat split, equal to the original files. - A local vitest collection of the chat suite partitions 995 tests into 498/497 line shards. - Projected shard weights: server 230s x12, chat ~143s x3, e2e 207-242s x8, serialized ~216s x9. ## Risks - The split spec files reorder tests relative to the original files. Every describe seeds its own company, so the specs stay independent; a hidden cross-describe dependency would surface as a deterministic failure in one shard. - The inline lockfile fallback changes install behavior for manifest-changing and stacked PRs. The policy job still validates resolution as a required check. - `release.sh` changes are confined to the `--dry-run` preview branch. The publish loop is untouched. `bash -n` passes and the release dry-run tests pass. - One PR now schedules ~44 fleet runners. If the RunsOn fleet caps concurrency, queueing may absorb part of the gain; watch the first runs. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic), extended thinking, with tool use (shell, file edits) in Claude Code. ## 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	2026-09-16 11:45:14 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	18989a9e73	docs: add eval guide, authoring skills, and public history hub (#13535 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its evaluations test both the Runner and complete product workflows. > - The guides and run histories are in separate places. > - The shared Evalbook viewer can make the test boundary unclear. > - This pull request names the two families and adds a guide, authoring skills, and a public hub. > - Contributors can choose the correct test and inspect its history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Issue type Missing documentation. Where is the issue? Runner and Product E2E evaluation guides, case-authoring procedures, and public result navigation. What's wrong? There is no single entry point. A report format can be mistaken for an execution boundary. There are no dedicated case-authoring skills for these two families. Suggested fix Add a guide and three skills. Link both existing histories from a public hub. Keep existing campaign URLs and grading unchanged. ## What Changed - Add `doc/evals.md` and links from existing guides. - Add the `paperclip-evals`, `add-runner-eval`, and `add-product-e2e-eval` skills. Install copies in `~/paperclipai/.agents/skills`. - Add a static hub builder that reads the existing public history feeds. - Show a dated snapshot for each family. Label partial campaigns and preserve measurement dates across report refreshes. - Document publication and refresh commands for https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals/. ## Verification - Seven Python summary tests pass: `python3 -m unittest discover -s scripts/evals-hub -p 'test_*.py'`. Run these checks directly; this PR does not modify package scripts. - All three skills pass the skill-creator `quick_validate.py` check with `/usr/bin/python3`. - Build tested with saved history fixtures and the live public feeds. - Desktop and mobile browser checks pass. The mobile page has no horizontal overflow. - Published https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals/. Browser check: HTTP 200, no page errors, all eight links return HTTP 200, no mobile overflow. - Independent skill exercises found the existing Notion-decline case and a direct Runner permission-denial case. Roster validation with an explicit run ID passes. - Missing refresh measurement date: regression fails before the fix and passes after it. - `git diff --check` passes. - No paid evals were run for this documentation and reporting change. The preceding head passed typecheck, build, server/workspace tests, runner verification, browser E2E, and the canary dry run. Checks for the latest commit are pending. Local repository-wide typecheck, test, and build were not repeated because no product code changed. ## Risks The hub is a dated static snapshot. It can lag behind the linked histories until an operator refreshes it. A changed history schema stops the build. Existing archives and grades are not modified. The published guide link is pinned to the reviewed commit so branch deletion cannot break it. Later builds can use master. ## Model Used OpenAI gpt-6-astra for implementation and review. OpenAI gpt-5.6-luna for documentation and independent skill checks. Both used repository tools and code execution. Context window sizes are 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (latest commit pending) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (preceding head was 5/5; latest commit pending) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-16 08:41:06 -05:00
Devin Foley bhautikchudasama Paperclip	a8d32e5e61	feat(sandbox-providers): add CreateOS sandbox provider (#13434 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent work runs in sandboxes that provider plugins supply > - Operators can choose a provider to run agent work > - CreateOS adds another provider with workspace-preserving pause and resume > - This pull request adds a CreateOS provider plugin > - The benefit is that operators can preserve a workspace between runs without keeping its compute active ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13203 and the earlier closed #13096. This continues the CreateOS contribution from @bhautikchudasama and @ashwaq06. The branch preserves the original implementation commit. Thank you to both contributors. When squash-merging, preserve the original author's credit in the squash commit body: ```text Co-Authored-By: bhautikchudasama <BhautikChudasama@users.noreply.github.com> ``` The original fork rejects maintainer pushes. This branch includes the merge-conflict resolution and review fixes. The request is described below using `adapter_request.yml`. Agent or provider CreateOS sandbox API (https://api.sb.createos.sh). Why this adapter is useful CreateOS can pause a sandbox and resume it by ID. The workspace survives the pause. This adds a reusable-lease option to the existing sandbox provider system. How the agent is invoked Build and install the local plugin as described in its README. Open Instance Settings, then Environments. Select the `createos` driver. Supply an API key and shape. The driver then supplies sandbox leases for agent runs. Are you willing to implement it? Yes. This pull request is the implementation. ## What Changed - Adds the `createos` sandbox provider under `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/createos`. - Calls the CreateOS HTTP API directly. The package adds no vendor SDK. - Implements the environment lifecycle hooks, incremental process output, and binary workspace sync. - Registers the optional bundled provider and its trusted host credential fallback. The fallback is limited to the official API origin; custom endpoints require an explicit key. - Lists the package in the release manifest with `publishFromCi: false` until its first npm publish is bootstrapped. - Waits through delayed pause/resume state updates without duplicate action requests. - Cancels queued API requests promptly while preserving request spacing. - Uses direct CLI invocation in the setup guide so paths and IDs are passed without an extra shell expansion. - Includes current master and retains its existing Git-subfolder containment fix. ## Demo Fresh setup and a run against a CreateOS sandbox. https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/e71b9e06-c006-4fb9-b847-52dfd68f6110 https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/43b5ac75-66bd-4f76-8563-67e4c7759084 ## Verification All 25 jobs in [CI run 34884260542](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34884260542) passed at commit `f8d0997677024b784fdadf9d44a84c01cb4e813c`, including typecheck, build, native runner verification, server and workspace tests, browser tests, and the canary release dry run. Greptile reviewed the same commit at 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. GitHub reports no merge conflicts. The remaining merge gate is code-owner approval for the new `package.json`, as required by `.github/CODEOWNERS` and the `master` ruleset. Reviewers have been requested automatically. Local checks passed: - Provider: `pnpm typecheck`, `pnpm test` (52 passed, one live smoke skipped), and `pnpm build`. - Host: focused credential and bundled-plugin tests (17 passed), plus CLI invocation safety (39 passed). - Release: package manifest check and release policy tests (18 passed). The full local `pnpm test:run` attempt caught the README command issue; its focused rerun now passes. The full local run stopped after its general-server group: 7,804 tests passed, with unrelated embedded PostgreSQL startup failures and 10 failures in unchanged runtime-skill-cache tests (`EACCES` on directory rename on macOS). It did not reach the later test groups. Local `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` reach the runner package and stop because this machine has no Rust/Cargo installation. The corresponding CI checks passed on provisioned runners, as linked above. The live CreateOS smoke requires explicit provider credentials and was not run during this review. It is available with `CREATEOS_LIVE_TEST=1 pnpm test` in the provider directory. The author supplied the demo links above. ## Risks The provider is opt-in and is not installed by default. It is available through a local-path install or explicit image inclusion. npm publication remains disabled until a maintainer bootstraps the package and enables publishing. Sandbox creation has no idempotency key. An ambiguous create response can leave a resource that requires provider-account inspection. Process tracking is in memory; durable lease recovery belongs to the host. The provider does not advertise guaranteed expiry, interactive login, snapshots, duplex channels, or ingress. Live native-runner qualification remains outside this PR's tested claims. ## Model Used Original provider implementation: human-authored by @bhautikchudasama, as reported in #13203. The original description reports Claude Opus 5 assistance. Review and follow-up fixes: OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with code review, editing, and tool execution. The precise runtime model variant 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 (focused checks; full-suite environment limits 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: bhautikchudasama <bhautikrchudasama@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-15 17:09:43 -07:00
Devin Foley	bfb4ceabbb	perf(release): wait for npm registry visibility of all packages concurrently (#13495 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release system publishes ~33 public npm packages per release across the canary, nightly, beta, and stable channels > - `scripts/release.sh` publishes them strictly sequentially: publish one package, poll npm until that version is registry-visible, then start the next > - npm accepts a publish in seconds, but registry packument propagation can lag minutes per package (the CI budget was raised to 30 minutes per package after two aborted releases), so the total publish time is the sum of every package's lag — about two hours on a bad npm day, paid by every channel run including every canary on every master push > - This pull request keeps the publishes sequential but runs all the registry visibility polls concurrently once every publish is accepted > - The benefit is that the wall-clock cost of npm propagation drops from the sum of all packages' lag to the single slowest package's lag, with every existing safety property preserved ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing issue. Description follows the enhancement template: What existing behavior does this improve? The npm publish step of `scripts/release.sh` (Step 5), used by every release channel. Subsystem affected Release tooling (`scripts/release.sh`, `scripts/release-lib.sh`). Current behavior Packages publish one at a time, and after each publish the script polls npm until that package's version is visible in the registry packument before publishing the next. With per-package propagation lag of minutes (observed up to ~15 minutes; per-package CI budget is 30 minutes), the full 33-package set takes up to ~2 hours of mostly idle waiting. Proposed behavior Phase 1 publishes every package sequentially exactly as today (a rejected publish still aborts the batch immediately with exact attribution). Phase 2 then polls registry visibility for all packages concurrently. Each package keeps its own `NPM_PUBLISH_VERIFY_ATTEMPTS` × `NPM_PUBLISH_VERIFY_DELAY_SECONDS` budget, and any version that never becomes visible still hard-fails the release, now naming every straggler. Reason and benefit Total publish wait becomes the slowest single package's lag instead of the sum of all lags — typically minutes instead of hours. This shortens every canary, nightly, beta, and stable run and reduces exposure to job timeouts during npm slowdowns. Breaking changes None. Dry-run output is byte-identical in structure, dist-tags are still applied at publish time (`--tag`), the Sigstore TLOG duplicate-recovery path is untouched, and the later dist-tag integrity check (`wait_for_release_registry_state`) is unchanged. ## What Changed - `scripts/release-lib.sh`: replaced `publish_package_to_npm_and_wait` with `wait_for_npm_package_versions`, which takes the package tuple list and polls every package's visibility in background subshells, each reusing the existing `wait_for_npm_package_version` poll (same per-package budget), then reports per-package success or fails naming all stragglers - `scripts/release.sh` Step 5: the publish loop calls `publish_package_to_npm` only (sequential, fail-fast on a rejected publish), followed by one call to `wait_for_npm_package_versions` for the whole set; Step 6's recap line updated to match - `scripts/release-lib.test.mjs`: the registry-visibility and workflow-budget tests now drive the new function (same assertions on `npm view` counts, virtual sleeps, and the fail-closed message, which now names the straggler); a new cross-visibility test proves concurrency — two fake packages that each become visible only after the other has been polled can only converge when polled in parallel, so the test fails if the waits ever serialize again Safety analysis for the ordering change: nothing in the publish loop resolves sibling packages from the registry. `prepare-bundled-package.mjs` bundles and patches from the local workspace tree, and the TLOG duplicate-recovery path only queries the package it just published. The only consumer of the "visible before next publish" invariant was the release script's own final verification, which still runs against the full set. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/release-lib.test.mjs` — 15 tests pass, including the new concurrency proof and the existing 15-minute-20-second budget tolerance test against the new function - `npm run test:release-registry` — full lane, 140 tests pass - `bash -n` on both scripts; `shellcheck` reports no findings beyond the three pre-existing ones on master (verified by comparing counts against `origin/master` copies) - A real-release exercise happens on the next master push: every canary run executes this exact path ## Risks - Low. The failure mode most worth watching is a release where some packages become visible and others never do: previously the run stopped at the first invisible package with later packages unpublished; now all packages are accepted before visibility is enforced, and the run fails naming every straggler. Recovery is identical in both worlds (the next attempt derives a new version number), and the accepted-but-lagging packages carry the correct dist-tag either way. - Publish jobs run the source commit's copy of `release.sh`, so this change takes effect for a given channel only once its source commit includes this merge — promoted nightlies/betas cut from older commits keep the old sequential behavior until their trains catch up. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking with tool use (Claude Code). ## 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	2026-09-15 16:09:51 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	6cfe4acff7	fix: preserve README images in npm package (#13488 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Its CLI is published as the paperclipai npm package, with the root README shown on the package page > - The root README uses repository-relative image paths so images render correctly on GitHub > - npm resolves those paths under the package repository directory, which is cli, so the image requests point to missing cli/doc/assets files > - This pull request prepares the generated npm README by converting only image src and srcset asset paths to stable raw GitHub URLs > - The benefit is that the same source README remains correct on GitHub and the published npm README displays its images ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Where is the issue? The issue is in the root README image assets and the npm packaging step in scripts/build-npm.sh. The affected public page is https://www.npmjs.com/package/paperclipai. What's wrong? The npm build copies README.md into cli/ before publishing. npm resolves relative image paths beneath the package repository directory, so doc/assets/banner.jpg becomes cli/doc/assets/banner.jpg. Those files do not exist, and the images render as broken on npm. Suggested fix Keep the root README paths relative for GitHub. Rewrite repository-relative image paths only in the generated npm README copy to absolute raw.githubusercontent.com URLs. ## What Changed - Added a small npm README preparation script that rewrites relative image src and srcset asset paths. - Updated scripts/build-npm.sh to use the preparation step when generating the npm package README. - Added a regression test for src, srcset, immutable refs, absolute URLs, and non-image Markdown links. - Pinned release-build image URLs to the source commit, while preserving tarball builds by passing their known source refs. ## Verification - Passed: node --test scripts/prepare-npm-readme.test.mjs - Passed: bash -n scripts/build-npm.sh scripts/e2e-install-lifecycle.sh scripts/e2e-update-migrations.sh - Passed: focused README and E2E migration harness tests - Passed: git diff origin/master...HEAD --check - Generated README asset URLs were checked against raw GitHub and all seven returned HTTP 200. ## Risks Low risk. The change affects only the temporary README generated for npm packaging. It does not change the GitHub README or runtime code. The generated npm README depends on the public raw GitHub asset URLs remaining available. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. Tool-enabled repository inspection, code execution, browser verification, and git/GitHub operations were used. ## 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/... or 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 risks above - [ ] 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>	2026-09-15 13:34:30 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4510bf7c9e	ci: use code-owner-reviewed master for trusted PR workflow (#13470 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Pull request CI uses a trusted workflow on the AWS runner fleet. > - The caller used a fixed SHA that also needed runner-group admission. > - A mainline pin update left CI queued because the group still allowed older SHAs. > - This pull request calls the trusted workflow on master, which requires code-owner review. > - New merged workflow versions can use the existing master runner-group entry. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #12968. That Dependabot PR proposes another SHA rotation. This change keeps this first-party workflow on master instead. What happened? CI run 34975562974 stayed queued because its trusted workflow SHA was absent from the runner-group allowlist. The fleet itself was healthy. Expected behavior New reviewed versions of the trusted workflow on master should receive runner access without a separate SHA allowlist update. Steps to reproduce Change the caller to a new trusted workflow SHA without adding that SHA to the restricted runner group. Its jobs remain queued. The master reference removes that recurring synchronization step. ## What Changed - Call `paperclipai/paperclip/.github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml@master`. - Exclude this exact first-party workflow from Dependabot updates. - Update the existing E2E shard workflow tests for the master caller contract. - Document the runner-group entry, required code-owner review, and old-reference retention. ## Verification - `actionlint .github/workflows/pr.yml` passed. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs .github/scripts/tests/cloud-runner-routing.test.mjs .github/scripts/tests/pr-runner-rust-cache.test.mjs .github/scripts/tests/pr-dependency-cache.test.mjs` passed: 35 tests. - Parsed Dependabot YAML and checked the exact workflow exclusion. - `git diff --check` passed. - Live GitHub checks confirmed `.github/**` has code owners, CODEOWNERS has no errors, and the active master ruleset requires code-owner review. This covers the trusted workflow, caller, and CODEOWNERS itself. - The approved organization setting now allows `paperclipai/paperclip/.github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml@refs/heads/master`. All previous references and other runner-group settings remain intact. - Full application typecheck, tests, and build were not repeated locally for this workflow-only change. This PR's CI and review are pending. ## Risks New versions of the trusted workflow take effect for new callers after merge to master. Keep code-owner review and master protection enabled. Existing administrator pull-request bypasses remain unchanged. Third-party action pins, runner routing, and infrastructure are unchanged. Older callers still use their SHA pins; their allowed refs remain in place. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex performed implementation and orchestration; its exact runtime variant and context-window size were not exposed. OpenAI `gpt-5.6-luna` with high reasoning inspected workflow assumptions and applied the approved runner-group setting. Both used code and tool access. ## 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 Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-15 09:43:24 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	4cc387f907	fix(ci): remove npm propagation from cloud readiness (#13456 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud needs a verified image and matching database migrator before it can deploy a merge. > - New npm package versions can take minutes to become downloadable after the package build finishes. > - The direct producer now publishes signed archives and a complete dependency lockfile for each master commit. > - This pull request makes readiness verify those artifacts and removes the duplicate automatic npm migrator run. > - Deployment still requires all source checks, exact image identity, migration compatibility, and pinned dependencies. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #13455, #13454, #13192 What existing behavior does this improve? The time from a master merge to the `Cloud deployable v1` signal. Current behavior Readiness polls npm metadata for the new DB and shared versions. An automatic dispatcher also starts a separate npm-only migrator workflow. A measured source built its packages at 06:22:41 UTC on 2026-09-15, but both npm archives were not downloadable until 06:31:56 UTC. Proposed behavior Wait for the successful exact-source direct producer, verify its signed manifest and all pinned downloads, and publish readiness only after the existing source and image jobs pass. Keep manual npm migrators and branch previews available. Reason and benefit Remove new-version npm propagation from merge-to-deployable time. The gain depends on whether image building or source verification finishes later; it is not a fixed subtraction from every run. ## What Changed - Require a successful producer from the canonical repository, exact commit, master ref, expected workflow, and approved event. - Verify the manifest's GitHub attestation with the hosted GitHub CLI. Enforce the exact source SHA, master workflow identity, and hosted runner. - Download and validate both archives and the complete dependency lockfile after publication succeeds. Reject invalid signatures, inaccessible objects, corrupt bytes, and source mismatches. - Remove automatic npm-only migrator dispatch. Retain manual release and branch-preview publication. - Document the cloud feature-switch prerequisite and coordinated rollback. ## Verification - `node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs`: 405 pass. - Focused readiness, routing, preview, and artifact tests: 249 pass. - Workflow lint and `git diff --check`: pass. - `pnpm test:release-registry`: 139 pass after installing this worktree's dependencies. - All latest-head GitHub CI checks passed. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved comments. - Application source is unchanged. Common-source local typecheck and build passed. The full local application suite has the documented macOS read-only-directory rename limitation from #13454 (13 failures in two unchanged suites); Linux CI is the final application gate. - Live readiness verification of master `da77a0c28c` passed in 6.52 seconds, including the real GitHub CLI signature policy and all artifact downloads. - Cloud consumer resolution with the certificate encoding fix passed in 5.45 seconds with zero npm metadata requests or npm processes. The consumer is deployed and enabled in staging and production; their live resolution APIs passed in 2.34 and 2.38 seconds. Both report the expected fixed harness commit. A fresh tenant deployment follows this cutover merge. ## Risks - `Cloud deployable v1` no longer promises npm preview availability. Enable the cloud direct-artifact consumer in staging and production before merging this change. - Artifact storage and GitHub attestations become required services for new direct releases. Missing or invalid evidence fails explicitly. - Restore the old npm dispatcher and readiness gate together before disabling the consumer switch. Retain artifacts referenced by existing releases. - This change does not expand AWS runner access. The producer and readiness bookkeeping use GitHub-hosted runners. Existing PR allowlists and source verification gates remain enforced. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## 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; full application host limitation 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-15 01:14:43 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	da77a0c28c	feat(ci): publish immutable cloud migrator artifacts (#13455 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud deploys images and a matching database migrator. > - New migrator versions must currently become available on npm before cloud can use them. > - npm can serve package metadata while the named archive still returns 404. > - This pull request publishes immutable migrator archives and a complete dependency lockfile through the existing artifact store. > - Cloud can install these exact packages without waiting for their new npm versions. > - This producer change prepares a separate cloud consumer and readiness cutover. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #13454 What happened? A recent master run built both packages by 06:22:41 UTC on 2026-09-15. Both archives became downloadable from npm at 06:31:56 UTC. Fresh metadata requests did not remove the delay. What did you expect to happen? Cloud should be able to install the verified migrator as soon as its package build and artifact upload finish. Steps to reproduce Compare package build completion, npm publication, version metadata availability, and tarball download availability for a fresh full commit SHA. Version Master commit `08adcc70d5ec45b7ced9619a3dc10c1d1bec397d`. ## What Changed - Add a master-only workflow that builds the DB and shared archives without publication credentials. - Resolve the dependency lockfile from local archives, then pin those archives to content-addressed URLs. - Publish the complete bundle to a separate prefix in the existing S3/CloudFront artifact store. Write the commit manifest last and verify public downloads. - Add a dedicated OIDC role policy. Only canonical master can assume it. Writes require `If-None-Match: *`; the role cannot overwrite or delete objects. - Add source, integrity, lockfile, publication, and real npm install tests. Document the format and staged rollout. - Attest the validated manifest with GitHub/Sigstore before S3 publication. The signature binds every package and lockfile hash to the exact master workflow and source commit. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/cloud-migrator-artifacts.test.mjs`: 7 tests pass, including real `npm ci` with an empty cache and no new-version metadata lookup. - `pnpm test:release-registry`: 136 tests pass. - `actionlint .github/workflows/cloud-migrator-artifacts.yml` and `git diff --check`: pass. - Ran the workflow's filtered install and package build against the exact master source. Built and validated the dependency lockfile from those real archives. - Latest-head application tests passed, including reruns of two failures in unchanged application tests. The final CI aggregate passed. The application source is unchanged. Common-source local typecheck and build passed; the full local suite has the same documented macOS read-only-directory rename limitation as #13454 (13 failures in two unchanged suites). - The dedicated role and additive bucket read permission are configured. IAM simulation allows only conditional writes in the intended prefix; overwrite without the condition, other prefixes, and deletion are denied. - Published the verified master `08adcc70d5` bundle with the operator session and verified all public downloads. GitHub OIDC publication is still pending the master workflow run. - Cloud resolved the real bundle and checked all 278 SQL migrations in 2.9 seconds with zero npm metadata requests or npm processes. The existing migration runner applied it to a disposable local PostgreSQL database and succeeded again on repeat. - The producer now requires an empty-cache smoke install of the actual package archives and their full dependency graph before upload. That check and imports of both installed packages passed locally. ## Risks - This is an additive producer rollout. It does not yet change the cloud resolver or the deployable marker. - The dedicated role and bucket read statement must be installed before the workflow can publish. Existing bucket policy statements and public-access blocks must be preserved. - Referenced artifacts must be retained for rollback. No expiry rule applies to this prefix. - Existing external dependencies still download from npm, with SHA-512 pins. New DB and shared versions do not require npm metadata. - The workflow uses GitHub-hosted runners and has no PR trigger. It adds no AWS compute routing or PR access. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## 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 release and real-artifact tests; full-suite host limitation 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-15 00:46:05 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	058c55bf8f	fix(ci): overlap preview migrator publication waits (#13454 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Cloud deploys an application image with a migrator from the same source commit. > - The migrator consists of the DB package and its matching shared package. > - npm can accept a package several minutes before readers can see it. > - The publisher waits for shared visibility before it submits the DB package. > - This change submits both validated packages before polling their visibility. > - Their availability delays can then overlap while the final gate still requires both packages. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #13334. No duplicate open migrator-publication fix was found. What happened? The cloud migrator publisher waits up to ten minutes for the shared package before submitting the DB package. The two registry delays therefore accumulate. A shared visibility timeout can prevent the DB package from being submitted at all. Expected behavior Submit both valid packages, then wait for both to pass the existing exact-source metadata checks. Report which package remains unavailable. Steps to reproduce Return 404 for shared metadata after npm accepts the shared archive. Observe that the old publisher never submits the DB archive until shared becomes visible. The new regression test requires both submissions before the first visibility sleep. Paperclip version Base commit `08adcc70d5`. GitHub Actions cloud-migrator publication. ## What Changed - Validate both package archives before either publication starts. - Submit missing packages before polling their visibility. - Report each visible package and name packages missing at timeout. - Cover delayed visibility, partial reuse, and invalid package pairs. - Document the publication order. ## Verification - Focused preview tests: 19 passed. - Release registry tests: 132 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - All 33 latest-head GitHub checks are green or intentionally skipped. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. - The local full Vitest run found three failures in unchanged company-skills cache tests. A standalone filesystem test reproduces this macOS host rejecting a read-only directory rename with EACCES. Those tests pass in Linux CI. The local full run continues. ## Risks The DB package can become visible before its shared dependency. The publisher still requires both to pass before succeeding. This removes avoidable serialization; it does not eliminate npm propagation delays or prove archive downloadability. Those remain separate parts of the migrator availability work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## 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 release tests; the full-suite macOS limitation is 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-14 23:57:12 -07:00
Devin Foley	08adcc70d5	fix(ci): retry transient GitHub reads while waiting for source verification (#13429 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Every commit on master is published as an npm canary, and a canary is the only thing a nightly, a beta and then a stable can be promoted from > - A canary only publishes after the release run confirms that Cloud readiness passed for that exact commit, which it does by polling the GitHub Actions API for up to 45 minutes > - That poll used a read that threw on any non-OK response, so one gateway error ended the wait immediately > - The release run then failed and the commit published no canary, although readiness itself had passed > - A commit with no canary can never be promoted, so this silently removes commits from the release path > - This pull request retries the reads that mean "ask again" and leaves every real failure fast > - The benefit is that a transient API error costs a few seconds instead of a release ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing issue. The problem, in the bug report format: What happened The `Reuse exact-source verification` job failed 12 seconds into a 45-minute wait: ``` Waiting for Cloud source verified v1 for `5054c9ef9b`. GitHub Actions read failed (HTTP 502). ##[error]Process completed with exit code 1. ``` `publish_canary` was skipped, so the commit published no canary. Cloud readiness for that same commit had already completed successfully. Expected behavior A gateway error from the GitHub API is a reason to ask again, not a verdict on the commit. The wait should continue and the canary should publish. Steps to reproduce 1. Push to master and let Cloud readiness pass for that commit. 2. Have the GitHub Actions API return 502 for any single read the verification poll makes. 3. The release run fails and no canary is published for that commit. Paperclip version or commit Present on master. Observed on 2026-09-14 in a release run for `5054c9ef9`. ## What Changed - `scripts/cloud-source-verification.mjs` gains `createActionsReader`, the transport the CLI entry point now uses. It retries transient transport failures — network errors and HTTP 408, 425, 429, 500, 502, 503 and 504 — with four bounded attempts and a growing backoff. - Every other non-OK status still throws on the first response. 401, 403 and 404 mean the token or the target is wrong, and waiting those out would only delay the failure. - The verification logic itself is untouched. A readiness run that genuinely failed still stops the release immediately, and an ambiguous or mismatched run still throws. ## Verification ``` node --test scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs # 16 passed node scripts/cloud-source-verification.mjs # still exits cleanly with the token message ``` New tests cover a retried gateway error, each transient status with its growing backoff, a retried network failure and the message that survives exhaustion, no retry for authorization failures, and the attempt budget. The pre-existing verification tests are unchanged and still pass. ## Risks Low risk, and limited to one CI script. - A genuinely unreachable API now takes four attempts before failing, which adds a few seconds to a run that was going to fail anyway. - The retry cannot mask a failed readiness run: that path throws a different error, from the verification logic rather than the transport. - No product code and no workflow changes. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), 1M context, extended thinking, run through Claude Code with tool use and code 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 - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — no documented behavior 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	2026-09-14 23:20:15 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	52d120f68d	fix(release): wait 30 minutes for npm to expose a published version (#13436 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Every release publishes a batch of npm packages and then waits for each one to become visible before continuing > - npm accepts a publish immediately but exposes it later, so that wait exists to keep a release from continuing past a package nobody can install yet > - Today that wait was too short twice in a row, and each timeout aborted the release with the batch half-published > - Version numbers are derived from what is already on npm, so every retry moves to a new number and meets the same lag > - Two canary attempts burned two versions this way and shipped nothing > - This pull request raises the per-package budget from ten minutes to thirty > - The benefit is that ordinary registry lag costs waiting instead of a failed, half-published release ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing issue. The problem, in the bug report format: What happened `publish_canary` failed twice in a row with the batch half-published: ``` Warning: npm accepted @paperclipai/server@2026.914.0-canary.2, but the version did not become registry-visible. Error: stopping release: npm did not publish and expose @paperclipai/server@2026.914.0-canary.2 ``` The version was accepted at 17:49:09 and became visible at 18:04:29 — about five minutes after the poll gave up. `shared`, `db` and `adapter-utils` published at that version; `server`, `paperclip-runner` and the root package did not. Expected behavior Ordinary registry propagation delay costs the release some waiting, not a failure. A package that becomes visible after 15 minutes must not abort the batch because of the old 10-minute wait. Longer registry outages can still leave a partial batch. Steps to reproduce 1. Publish any channel while npm is propagating slowly. 2. A package takes longer than `NPM_PUBLISH_VERIFY_ATTEMPTS * NPM_PUBLISH_VERIFY_DELAY_SECONDS` to become visible. 3. The release aborts, that version is half-published, and the retry picks a new version number and meets the same lag. Paperclip version or commit Present on master. Observed on 2026-09-14 across canary runs in workflow run 34869494325. ## What Changed - Increase npm visibility checks from 60 to 180, retaining the 10-second delay: about 30 minutes per package. - Increase canary, nightly, beta, and stable publish job timeouts from 90 to 150 minutes. - Add offline regression tests using the workflow's actual settings. They cover the observed 15-minute 20-second delay, immediate visibility, exhausted retries, and job timeout sizing. - Load the access router in test setup so its cold transform does not consume the first permission test's 10-second timeout. The permission assertions are unchanged. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/release-lib.test.mjs`: 14 passed. - `pnpm run test:release-registry`: 129 passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/access-routes-permissions-upgrade.test.ts`: 3 passed. - Regression proof in temporary fixtures: restoring 60 attempts fails the observed-delay test; restoring 90-minute jobs fails the timeout-budget test. - [CI run 34916632804](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34916632804): all jobs passed, including typecheck/release registry, build, all general and serialized server shards, browser tests, runner verification, and canary dry run. The PR has 31 successful checks and two expected Storybook skips at `a27f5e896`. - [Previously failing serialized shard](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34916632804/job/104215809616): all three access-route permission tests passed in CI after preloading the router. - Greptile's final review is 5/5 with no outstanding findings. Both review threads are resolved. - Local limits: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` stop at the runner package because this machine has no Rust `cargo` executable. The duplicate full local `pnpm test:run` was interrupted while the complete CI matrix ran. Targeted local results are listed above; full validation is from CI. The previous CI failures were unrelated to npm propagation: - [PR review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34891770396) required a test file for this fix. - [Serialized server shard 3](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34891773736/job/104136392196) timed out in the first access-route permission test at 10 seconds. The other two tests in that file passed. - The canary dry run passed in that same CI run. ## Risks Low risk. Production behavior changes only in release waiting budgets. - Polling exits as soon as npm exposes the version, so healthy publishes do not wait longer. - An unavailable version now takes about 30 minutes to report. Polls remain bounded and still fail the release on exhaustion. - The 150-minute jobs leave roughly 30 minutes for setup/build plus four full polling windows. npm command runtime and later release steps also consume that budget; a broader outage can still interrupt a batch. - The permission-test change moves module loading into a bounded setup hook; it does not relax authorization assertions. - No schema changes or operational migrations. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), 1M context, extended thinking, run through Claude Code with tool use and code execution. - OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex), with reasoning, tool use, and code execution, for the CI follow-up. Context-window size is 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 — targeted checks listed above; full validation passed in CI - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — workflow comments and verification details - [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>	2026-09-14 20:16:29 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	728f7185f6	feat: add native in-app announcements with persistent dismissal (#13403 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Self-hosted boards need a way to show occasional product announcements. > - An app release should not be required to publish or withdraw a card. > - Native card controls keep publishing consistent; the hero can use a static image or isolated HTML/CSS animation. > - This pull request renders a validated JSON feed with native components. > - It stores dismissals per account on each instance, so a closed card stays closed across companies and browsers. > - Named staging feeds let authors test content before production publication. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Board application shell, announcement delivery, and user preferences. Problem or motivation Operators need a small, optional announcement card. Users need reliable dismissal state. Authors need to test remote content without changing the production feed. Proposed solution Add one non-modal AnnouncementWell. Fetch validated JSON and content-addressed media through the instance server. Keep card controls native, with optional sandboxed HTML/CSS animation in the hero. Use stable announcement IDs for dismissal, an explicit empty manifest and quiet 404 handling. Provide a staged publishing helper and isolated test-drive guide. Alternatives considered Hosting the entire card as a page would move navigation and dismissal into remote content. This change limits HTML to a scriptless, isolated visual hero and keeps controls native. Browser-only storage would lose dismissals across browsers, so the instance stores account preferences. Roadmap alignment ROADMAP.md has no overlapping announcement feature. A GitHub title search found no related announcement pull requests. This work implements a maintainer-requested feature. ## What Changed - Add shared feed types, strict validation of every object, supported routes, expiration and version checks. - Add a board-only current-feed API, constrained media proxy, and idempotent dismissal API. Store the first dismissal and its company audit entry in one transaction. - Cache upstream data for one hour. Use conditional requests, request deduplication, response limits, public destination checks, and a three-second deadline. Treat a remote 404 as an empty feed with a fifteen-minute retry cooldown. - Keep announcement visibility stable when focus moves to browser chrome or another app pane; only tab visibility starts a return check. - Add a responsive native announcement card. Respect onboarding, dialogs and toast placement. Sync pending dismissals across tabs and retry after reconnect or return. - Add idempotent migrations for dismissals and validated publication IDs, design-guide examples, static and animated Storybook examples, and focused tests. The publication registry supports offline retries without accepting caller-invented IDs. - Add HTML/CSS animated heroes with static posters, automatic playback, reduced-motion handling, strict DOMPurify validation, an empty iframe sandbox and CSP that blocks scripts/network resources. - Add validated staging publication, content-addressed assets, an empty production manifest, preview fixtures, and authoring/operator documentation. ## Verification - The preceding implementation passed 98 targeted shared/server/publisher/route/OpenAPI/UI tests and 127 tests including the master rebase. The playback-control removal passes all 21 announcement UI tests, covering the rendered sandbox, fallback, reduced motion, dismissal and slow/stale state lookups. The preceding shared/server tests cover HTML validation and response sandbox headers. - The playback-control removal passes UI typecheck, production UI build, Storybook build and token gates locally. Browser verification confirms the animated card has only its dismiss button and two links, with no page errors. The full canonical CI matrix passed on current head `00e416431edb610861599d50490270bbd0f3c6b6`: 32 successful checks and two optional Storybook deployment checks skipped. This run needed no retries. Greptile reviewed this same head at 5/5 with no outstanding findings. - The local canonical general-server run passed 12,063 tests before reporting embedded-PostgreSQL startup failures in an unrelated fixture. All 31 tests in that fixture passed across isolated retries. The UI group passed 6,219 tests and other workspace groups passed 3,201; two CLI database-startup failures also passed individually. Serialized server suites were verified by the full CI matrix rather than repeating them locally. No source changes were needed for these environment failures. - The real S3/CloudFront staging manifest and both media asset headers were verified. Production remains empty/unpublished. The guide distinguishes the preview host's disabled edge cache from production cache requirements. - In the isolated test-drive, the animation visibly moves without playback controls. A 390×844 browser viewport keeps the card above navigation. Reduced motion makes no animation request. Both themes render correctly and browser page errors are empty. Browser fault injection verified that scripts cannot execute and CSS cannot make network requests; a missing animation leaves its poster and controls. - Refresh leaves the animated card visible. Closing it persists after reload and the API returns null. Earlier live checks verified dismissal across browsers, company-relative CTA navigation, modal deferral/restoration, and new-ID eligibility after restarting the same database. - The deployed empty feed and a real remote 404 return HTTP 200 with null from the board API, with a usable dashboard and no announcement popup or browser warnings. - Authoring documentation covers staging, animated HTML constraints, test-drive, withdrawal, ID reuse and cache-refresh steps. ## Risks - Animation supports self-contained visual HTML/CSS and inline SVG, without JavaScript or external resources. A static image is required. Older builds that do not recognize the optional animation field quietly hide that unsupported feed. - The default feed makes an outbound request from an instance when a board is used. Operators can disable it. Requests contain no account IDs, company data, cookies or interaction events. - Feed publication and withdrawal can take about 65 minutes to reach returning users because of CDN and instance caches. Expiration also removes visible cards locally. - Dismissals follow an account within one instance. No-login instances share the existing local-board identity. Separate installations do not share state. - Both tables are additive. A unique key prevents duplicate dismissals; the transaction prevents duplicate first-dismissal audit entries. The publication registry retains only validated IDs. AGENTS.md and the implementation spec document the required exception to company scope for these instance-level records. - Publication was limited to separate public staging prefixes on the existing preview host. Production remains empty/unpublished. No AWS policies or infrastructure were changed. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Capabilities used: reasoning, code editing, shell execution, tests, browser interaction, and 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 - [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>	2026-09-14 10:19:54 -05:00
Michael Nguyen	2d47a8058d	fix(apps): update connector artwork and theme fallback (#13361 ) > Awaiting author review. Do not merge until the author explicitly approves. ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Connector screens need recognizable app artwork. > - Several bundled marks have inconsistent artwork or dark-theme behavior. > - The shared logo component should retain the existing frame. > - This change replaces selected artwork and fixes local theme fallback. > - Users see consistent connector icons across shared component callers. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Current behavior Some connector marks use outdated artwork or unsuitable theme variants. A remote dark logo can override a canonical local mark that works in both themes. Proposed behavior Use the selected bundled artwork with the existing gray rounded frame. Use local light artwork in both themes unless a distinct local dark variant exists. Subsystem affected Connector artwork, the shared AppLogo resolver, and its validation. Breaking changes No connector capability, permission, credential, or catalog activation changes. No duplicate PR was found in the earlier search. ## What Changed - Update 46 artwork files and only the app definitions whose logo paths need to change. - Keep a compact public manifest of identities, paths, visibility, and aliases. - Prefer local artwork in both themes and preserve the existing frame and padding. - Add locally runnable artwork safety checks and a light/dark Storybook gallery; leave PR workflows unchanged. - Document artwork conventions. Source research is kept outside the public manifest. ## Verification - Artwork check: 69 identities pass. - Node artwork validation tests: 13 pass (rechecked September 14). - Focused resolver, component, and catalog tests: 40 pass (rechecked September 14). - Maintainer decision: dedicated icon-validation CI is not required; the workflow remains unchanged. Greptile acknowledged 5/5 with no remaining code concerns on September 14. - UI typecheck, token gates, and Storybook build pass. - Earlier full build and repository typecheck passed. The broad local test run was stopped after workspace-runtime dependency fixture failures outside this change. Current GitHub CI remains the full-suite gate. - Visual approval remains outstanding. Review the canonical icon registry in both themes at 24–48px. ## Risks The SVG checker rejects common active features; it is not a general sanitizer for arbitrary uploads. Optical balance still requires human review. Remote fallback for unknown brands retains existing behavior. This change does not add an asset importer or new connector capabilities. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, assisted by GPT-5 and GPT-6 with code execution and browser tooling. Exact hosted model IDs and context window sizes were not exposed. ## 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 - [ ] 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 - [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 ## Artwork comparison Before and after for every affected identity. Images follow your GitHub light/dark theme and are pinned to the base and PR commits. This compares artwork; the existing gray rounded product frame and padding are unchanged. \| Connector \| Before \| After \| \|---\|:---:\|:---:\| \| AgentMail \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/agentmail-dark.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/agentmail.svg" alt="AgentMail" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/agentmail.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/agentmail.svg" alt="AgentMail" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Airtable \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/airtable.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/airtable.svg" alt="Airtable" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/airtable.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/airtable.svg" alt="Airtable" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Asana \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/asana.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/asana.svg" alt="Asana" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/asana.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/asana.svg" alt="Asana" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| ClickHouse \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/clickhouse.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/clickhouse.svg" alt="ClickHouse" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/clickhouse-dark.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/clickhouse.svg" alt="ClickHouse" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Cloudflare \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/cloudflare.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/cloudflare.svg" alt="Cloudflare" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/cloudflare.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/cloudflare.svg" alt="Cloudflare" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Cloudinary \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/cloudinary-dark.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/cloudinary.svg" alt="Cloudinary" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/cloudinary-dark.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/cloudinary.svg" alt="Cloudinary" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Discord \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/discord.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/discord.svg" alt="Discord" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/discord-dark.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/discord.svg" alt="Discord" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| GitHub \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/github-dark.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/github.svg" alt="GitHub" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/github-dark.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/github.svg" alt="GitHub" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Gmail \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/gmail.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/gmail.svg" alt="Gmail" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/gmail.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/gmail.svg" alt="Gmail" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Google Calendar \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/google-calendar.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/google-calendar.svg" alt="Google Calendar" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/google-calendar.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/google-calendar.svg" alt="Google Calendar" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Google Chat \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/google-chat.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/google-chat.svg" alt="Google Chat" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/google-chat.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/google-chat.svg" alt="Google Chat" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Google Docs \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/google-docs.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/google-docs.svg" alt="Google Docs" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/google-docs.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/google-docs.svg" alt="Google Docs" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Google Drive \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/google-drive.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/google-drive.svg" alt="Google Drive" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/google-drive.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/google-drive.svg" alt="Google Drive" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Google People \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/google-people.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/google-people.svg" alt="Google People" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/google-people.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/google-people.svg" alt="Google People" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Google Sheets \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/google-sheets.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/google-sheets.svg" alt="Google Sheets" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/google-sheets.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/google-sheets.svg" alt="Google Sheets" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Google Slides \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/google-slides.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/google-slides.svg" alt="Google Slides" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/google-slides.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/google-slides.svg" alt="Google Slides" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Google Workspace Search \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/google-workspace-search.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/google-workspace-search.svg" alt="Google Workspace Search" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/google-workspace-search.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/google-workspace-search.svg" alt="Google Workspace Search" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Hugging Face \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/hugging-face.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/hugging-face.svg" alt="Hugging Face" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/hugging-face.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/hugging-face.svg" alt="Hugging Face" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Jam.dev (library only) \| New library entry \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/jam-dev-dark.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/jam-dev.svg" alt="Jam.dev" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Jira \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/jira-dark.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/jira.svg" alt="Jira" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/jira.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/jira.svg" alt="Jira" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Linear \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/linear.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/linear.svg" alt="Linear" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/linear-dark.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/linear.svg" alt="Linear" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Manufact \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/manufact.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/manufact.svg" alt="Manufact" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/manufact-dark.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/manufact.svg" alt="Manufact" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Microsoft Teams \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/microsoft-teams.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/microsoft-teams.svg" alt="Microsoft Teams" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/microsoft-teams.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/microsoft-teams.svg" alt="Microsoft Teams" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Miro \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/miro-dark.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/miro.svg" alt="Miro" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/miro.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/miro.svg" alt="Miro" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Mixpanel \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/mixpanel.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/mixpanel.svg" alt="Mixpanel" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/mixpanel-dark.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/mixpanel.svg" alt="Mixpanel" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Netlify \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/netlify.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/netlify.svg" alt="Netlify" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/netlify-dark.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/netlify.svg" alt="Netlify" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Notion \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/notion-dark.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/notion.svg" alt="Notion" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/notion.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/notion.svg" alt="Notion" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| PagerDuty \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/pagerduty.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/pagerduty.svg" alt="PagerDuty" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/pagerduty.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/pagerduty.svg" alt="PagerDuty" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| PostHog \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/posthog-dark.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/posthog.svg" alt="PostHog" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/posthog-dark.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/posthog.svg" alt="PostHog" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Postman \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/postman.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/postman.svg" alt="Postman" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/postman.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/postman.svg" alt="Postman" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Shopify \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/shopify.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/shopify.svg" alt="Shopify" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/shopify.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/shopify.svg" alt="Shopify" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Slack \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/slack.png"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/slack.png" alt="Slack" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/slack.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/slack.svg" alt="Slack" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Stripe \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/stripe.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/stripe.svg" alt="Stripe" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/stripe.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/stripe.svg" alt="Stripe" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Supabase \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/supabase.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/supabase.svg" alt="Supabase" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/supabase.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/supabase.svg" alt="Supabase" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Telegram \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/telegram.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/telegram.svg" alt="Telegram" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/telegram.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/telegram.svg" alt="Telegram" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Todoist \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/todoist.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/todoist.svg" alt="Todoist" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/todoist.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/todoist.svg" alt="Todoist" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Wix \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/wix.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/wix.svg" alt="Wix" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/wix-dark.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/wix.svg" alt="Wix" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| \| Zapier \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/zapier.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/c9e3bb7ca40160b2ff80958ec1a8c0254638ad42/ui/public/brands/apps/zapier.svg" alt="Zapier" width="48" height="48"></picture> \| <picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/zapier.svg"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/ea053c60d9d2c5c3470275e2f4dfde5f8fe5db53/ui/public/brands/apps/zapier.svg" alt="Zapier" width="48" height="48"></picture> \|	2026-09-14 05:05:27 -10:00
Devin Foley	13368c5183	fix: unblock clean-machine onboarding for api_key AI connections (nightly smoke) (#13372 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The release pipeline gates each nightly on a Docker onboarding smoke. The smoke proves a clean machine can finish onboarding and hire the first agent. > - #13247, #13248, #13344, and #13351 changed the Connect step. Connect now creates an AI connection that the server verifies live with the provider. > - The managed adoption check also demanded a CLI hello probe. A clean machine has no provider CLI and cannot complete a subscription login. Onboarding dead-ends and the nightly gate fails. > - This pull request lets a live-verified API key adopt on the engine's own verdict, and re-verifies the key with the provider at adoption time. > - It also drives the release smoke through the API-key path against a provider mock that lives inside the test harness. > - The benefit is a green, deterministic release gate with no paid credential in CI, and a working first run for API-key users on clean installs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. The failure surfaced in the nightly release gate. Related PRs (no duplicates found): #13247, #13248, #13344, #13351 (the Connect changes), and #12423, #12135, #12151 (earlier release-smoke updates). What happened? The nightly Release cut failed its gate: [run 34749840498](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34749840498), job `smoke_nightly / smoke`, on published canary `2026.913.0-canary.2`. The wizard never left the "Connect a model" step. The subscription path waits for a human to run `claude auth login` on the server. The API-key path saves and live-validates the key, but the environment test then fails with `Command not found in PATH: "claude"` and `ai_connection_validation_incomplete`, and the wizard blocks the hire. Expected behavior A clean machine with a provider-accepted API key completes onboarding and hires the lead agent. The release smoke passes without a real paid credential in CI. Steps to reproduce 1. Run `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh` with `PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=2026.913.0-canary.2`. 2. Sign in, complete onboarding to "Connect a model", select "Use API key instead", pick Claude, enter a valid API key, and press Connect. 3. The environment test fails on the missing `claude` CLI and blocks the hire. Paperclip version or commit `2026.913.0-canary.2` (nightly candidate `c9e3bb7ca`). ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/agents.ts`: `testManagedEnvironment` no longer forces the CLI-lane hello probe for a resolved `api_key` binding. It re-verifies the key against the provider's live endpoint instead (the same `validateAiApiKey` check the save performed, which needs no CLI). A key the provider rejects fails adoption with `ai_connection_api_key_rejected`. Subscription adoption keeps the strict hello-probe requirement. - `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh`: the harness now serves `api.anthropic.com` itself. A sibling container (the already-built smoke image) runs a small HTTPS mock. The app container gets `--add-host` for that one hostname and trusts the mock's certificate through `NODE_EXTRA_CA_CERTS`. The private key stays mode 600 in the mock container; the app container mounts only the certificate. The mock serves only `GET /v1/models` and returns 404 for every other path. `SMOKE_PROVIDER_MOCK=false` disables it. - `tests/release-smoke/docker-auth-onboarding.spec.ts`: the spec drives the API-key path — switch the credential mode before the source tile (the link hides when the row collapses), enter the key, and Connect. Loopback targets use a placeholder key that the mock accepts. Any other target must set `PAPERCLIP_RELEASE_SMOKE_ANTHROPIC_API_KEY`, and the test fails on arrival without it. - `server/src/__tests__/agent-test-environment-routes.test.ts`: three new route tests cover accepted keys (no CLI probe consulted), provider-rejected keys, and subscriptions that cannot complete a hello probe. ## Verification - `npx vitest run src/__tests__/agent-test-environment-routes.test.ts` — 26/26 pass. - `npx vitest run src/__tests__/ai-connections.test.ts src/__tests__/ai-legacy-compatibility.test.ts` — 42/42 pass. - `tsc --noEmit` reports no errors in the touched files. - Full local harness + suite run against the exact failing canary: the app container reaches the mock (request visible in the mock log), the placeholder key validates, and the connection saves as the default. The flow then stops at the forced CLI hello probe — the exact server check this PR removes, still present in the published canary. The next canary that includes this fix is the end-to-end proof. - Hardening check: from inside the app container, the mock answers with status 200 and `key.pem` is not visible. ## Risks - Behavior shift: `api_key` adoption no longer requires a CLI hello probe. It re-verifies the key with the provider at adoption instead. Subscription adoption is unchanged. - The mock returns 404 for unexpected provider calls, so a future onboarding change that calls a new endpoint fails the smoke loudly instead of passing silently. - Release-smoke runs against non-loopback targets now require an explicit key and fail fast without one. - No database migration. No dependency change. No provider routing change. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`) through the Claude Code CLI, with extended thinking and tool use (shell, file edits, Playwright runs, GitHub CLI). No other models were used. ## 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	2026-09-13 17:02:02 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	13bae6fa21	fix: reject unsupported REST tool connections without stdio validation (#13346 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their connections. > - Connection checks must use the configured transport. > - The tool service treated every remaining transport as local stdio. > - Anthropic's old REST method therefore failed with a templateId error. A REST connection with a valid stdio template could incorrectly pass. > - Anthropic now has a supported AI-account flow. This pull request removes its obsolete REST setup option and limits stdio checks to stdio connections. > - Users can connect an AI account, and existing unsupported connections receive an accurate error. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #13248 added the supported AI-account flow. Searches for related REST health and templateId bugs found no duplicate fix. What happened? The Anthropic REST API-key connection showed `Local stdio MCP connections must use an approved templateId`. Health checks and catalog discovery both fell through to the local stdio path. A REST connection with an approved template could report success and expose the template's catalog without a REST integration. Expected behavior Only local stdio connections use command templates. Unsupported transports return an accurate HTTP 422 error. New Anthropic accounts use the supported runtime authentication flow. Steps to reproduce 1. Check out the test-only commit `924e6e85a` in a separate worktree and install dependencies. 2. Run `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t 'unsupported REST\|obsolete Anthropic'`. 3. The tests exercise saved Anthropic REST configuration and an unsupported REST connection containing an approved stdio template. They cover health checks and catalog discovery separately. 4. Run the same tests on the fix commit. They pass. The full affected files also pass. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced against master `6cef9743c`. Deployment mode Server transport handling. Reproduced with an isolated embedded PostgreSQL test database. No provider account or live credentials are required. ## What Changed - Restrict stdio health checks and tool discovery to `local_stdio`. - Return and audit `tool_connection_transport_unsupported` with HTTP 422 for unsupported tool transports. - Remove Anthropic's obsolete REST method from the generated catalog and its durable ingestion source. Keep its subscription and API-key AI methods. - Cover the reported error, false-success case, rejected obsolete setup, connection removal, and the UI's AI-account submission path. - Replace impossible reconnect forms for removed methods with supported setup, while preserving connection removal. - Preserve AI-versus-tool intent isolation for legacy requests and reject new unsupported Anthropic tool requests. - Document recovery for existing unsupported connections. ## Verification - Clean-worktree red/green: the same command failed all six regression cases at `924e6e85a` and passed all six at `4d3de9de0`. The failing run includes the reported templateId error. - Green: all 555 tests across the six affected test files passed. - Recovery UI red/green: three added cases failed before the recovery fix and passed afterward; all 200 tests across setup, detail, and advanced controls passed. - After the recovery UI update, UI typecheck/build and token gates passed again. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - Catalog regeneration — passed with the documented `PAPERCLIP_CONTENT_TEMPLATES` override for the local capture corpus. - Full CI on `69fb31fd4` — passed all general and serialized test shards, browser shards, typecheck, build, runner verification, and canary dry run: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34726975425. - The local serial `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the fixture correction superseded that run; full-suite verification above comes from CI. All 555 affected tests passed locally, including all 17 connection-intent tests after the correction. - Greptile — 5/5, successful check on final commit `69fb31fd4`, no unresolved findings. - No live Anthropic validation was performed. The UI regression uses a fake key and a mocked AI-account response. ## Risks Existing obsolete REST connections remain in needs-attention state. Users must add an account through the supported flow and remove the old connection. Credentials and grants are not transferred automatically. Removal remains covered. The specialized AgentMail and Composio paths keep their existing behavior. There are no schema or permission changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact serving model ID and context-window capacity are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, code editing, shell tools, 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-12 19:26:58 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	47ded8bf97	feat: manage AI runtime credentials through Connections (#13247 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs need credentials for a specific provider and sign-in method. > - Connections already owns accounts, grants, and access permissions. > - AI authentication should use those same boundaries. > - This pull request adds the storage, API, adoption, and runtime foundation. > - Legacy agents keep their authentication until they explicitly adopt a managed connection. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Problem or motivation AI credentials are configured separately from Connections. Agents cannot consistently reuse a responsible user's account or a permitted shared account. Proposed solution Manage AI accounts with the existing Connections grants and permissions. Keep model and harness selection independent from credential selection. Preserve legacy authentication until validated adoption. Alternatives considered A separate credential registry would duplicate ownership and access policy. Automatic fallback would risk using the wrong account. Roadmap alignment This extends the shipped Apps, multi-user, secrets, and agent-runtime capabilities. The maintainer requested the feature and reviewed the UI. Related groundwork: #11899 (connection permissions), #10910 (connection wizard), #11692 (Claude subscription profiles), and #11854 (Codex account rotation). ## What Changed - Add AI-purpose/runtime-auth contracts and an additive, idempotent migration. - Add Claude, OpenAI, OpenRouter, and Grok provider capabilities and catalog entries. - Store credentials on grants. Resolve responsible-user defaults or explicit permitted grants. - Isolate managed credentials and provider sessions across accounts. Block missing credentials without ambient fallback. - Keep imported legacy secrets unchanged during reconnect. Use independent local Codex/Grok sign-in attempts for rotating credentials. - Add authorization, migration, concurrent refresh, retry, cancellation, and legacy-compatibility tests. This is part 1 of a two-PR stack. The app UI follows in #13248. Merge the foundation first. ## Verification - Updated against master `04e364236`, preserving upstream provider login and connector workflows. - Full workspace typecheck, production build, Storybook build, and token gates passed on the integrated branch. Final local-login changes passed 59 focused tests; new-agent and inbox regression suites passed 63 tests. - Browser checks verified automatic local Claude account detection, resumable Codex login commands, retry, focus restoration, and desktop/phone layouts. Commands create their isolated directory before invoking the CLI. - All current-head CI checks passed on `2a996560a`, including all server/workspace tests, browser shards, runner verification, typecheck, build, and canary dry run. Greptile reviewed that commit at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. Earlier local full-suite attempts hit the Mac PostgreSQL shared-memory limit; the complete suites passed in CI. - Renumbered the additive AI migration to `0276` after upstream migrations and regenerated its snapshot. Existing legacy agents retain their configuration. - Added local login status checks, owner-scoped retry, managed OpenCode remote homes, credential-aware model discovery, and task connection-repair delivery. ## Risks - Managed credential failures intentionally block execution. They do not restore legacy fallback. - Preview-era copied Codex/Grok subscriptions require independent reconnect. - The integrated branch has live provider acceptance coverage. This update verifies local Claude detection and Codex API-key task repair; it does not add a new subscription authorization/refresh or Daytona stress pass. - Runtime-auth connections must stay excluded from tool and channel handling. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. The exact runtime model identifier 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>	2026-09-12 16:30:10 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4d317274ce	feat(channels): add experimental iMessage Photon (#13299 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Channels connect external conversations to company tasks and agent execution. > - Slack, Discord, and AgentMail already provide durable delivery and access controls. > - People also need to reach an agent from Apple Messages and send photos. > - Photon provides shared Pro DMs, dedicated numbers, and authenticated event recovery. > - This pull request connects Photon to the existing channel services. > - People can message an agent while Paperclip retains task ownership and approval authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: channel services, shared contracts, database constraints, Apps, and agent Channels UI. Problem or motivation Paperclip has no iMessage channel. A person cannot use Apple Messages to start a task, send a photo, or answer an agent's pending question. Proposed solution Add experimental iMessage Photon with Pro-compatible shared DMs or a dedicated Photon Cloud number per agent channel. Reuse channel admission, identity links, task generations, publication, and interaction continuation. Keep groups disabled for shared allocation. Dedicated lines support groups that an operator explicitly enables. Require a fresh linked message and a published agent response before setup completes. Alternatives considered Shared allocation has no owned phone number, so it reserves one project and allows DMs only. Dedicated allocation reserves one stable number. Local Mac access needs a separate deployment model. The upstream Photon Chat SDK adapter does not persist the poll mappings and send receipts required here. This change uses the lower-level SDK without adding another agent runtime. Roadmap alignment This extends Connected Apps and agent communication through the existing channel subsystem. It does not add a parallel tool connection or agent loop. GitHub searches for Photon and iMessage found no matching provider implementation. Additional context This ships behind the existing experimental channel gate. Dedicated-line release qualification remains incomplete. Real Photon Pro DMs passed task/reply, native poll, text answers, confirmation rejection, media, restart, pause, reconnect, revocation, and removal tests. An operator-supplied iPhone camera HEIC also passed the full round trip. Dedicated groups remain unqualified. See [the verification record](doc/connections/IMESSAGE-PHOTON-VERIFICATION.md) and [the implementation plan](doc/plans/2026-09-11-imessage-photon.md). ## What Changed - Add the provider catalog entry, shared setup contracts, and a forward migration. A global partial index reserves the dedicated number or shared project until its endpoint is archived. - Add Cloud project inspection, vaulted project credentials, selected-line token renewal, and a leased receiver. Persist checkpoint updates under the receiver lease. Shared project replay accepts sparse increasing sequences only after a complete recovery barrier. - Connect DMs and enabled groups to existing task generations, sender authorization, ordered delivery, and publication services. Keep each iMessage conversation on its task after completion; only explicit `/new` or `/close` releases the binding. Publish committed inbound comments live and label their human bubbles “Sent from iMessage” in both task-chat renderers. - Persist immutable text/file send identities, upload receipts, poll IDs, option IDs, per-person drafts, and canonical interaction continuation proofs. - Add source-bound file recovery, bounded HEIC/HEIF conversion, JPEG previews, and related Live Photo companion video retention. - Add the three-step setup flow and channel management surfaces with official branding. Preserve the experimental gate and existing pause/disconnect behavior. - Add interactive production-component Storybooks for setup, access, recovery, and ongoing conversations. Add provider, integration, catalog, and browser regression coverage. Document setup, recovery, supported boundaries, and qualification gaps. ## Verification - Live Photon Pro, SDK 2.1.0: linked iPhone messages create a task and receive native Codex replies in Apple Messages. Unlinked senders cannot start work. - Three real follow-ups each reopened the same completed task. Incoming bubbles appeared on its open page without reload and showed “Sent from iMessage.” The third follow-up ran after restarting the server on `4d7222110`; the agent correctly repeated its previous reply from before the restart. - Native polls after restart, sequential text drafts, required-field correction, explicit submission, approval rejection with a required reason, and native continuation passed against Photon. - PNG, text documents, synthetic HEIC, and a real iPhone camera HEIC passed in both directions. The camera photo produced a 3024×4032 JPEG preview. The native agent described it and returned the received HEIC byte-for-byte. - Pause/resume, reconnect, identity revocation, removal, `/status`, `/new`, `/close`, and stale answers after close passed live. Messages suppressed by pause did not become work on resume. Removal stopped intake and removed credential bindings. - All 304 focused tests passed on `4d7222110`. These cover Photon unit/integration behavior, both task-chat renderers, live comment hydration, completed-task continuity after restart, enabled groups, duplicate delivery, and explicit reset/close. The selected Teams completion-boundary regression also passed. Full workspace typecheck/build and token gates passed for the conversation fix; the final UI changes passed their affected typecheck/build and tests. - All 26 new Photon Storybook Playwright cases passed in light and dark themes, including the complete shared-DM setup journey and 390px mobile follow-ups. UI typecheck and the Storybook build passed. These stories use simulated Photon responses and do not replace the live evidence above. - The full chat-adapters browser suite previously passed all 39 cases. Migration checks passed, and migration 0275 applied to the isolated live instance with the earlier Photon migration already applied. - The local full Vitest run was previously interrupted by the host's embedded-Postgres shared-memory limit; it is not a full-suite pass. All 30 applicable CI checks passed on preceding head `7a5419cac`, with two skipped checks and Greptile 5/5. Head `24f8e1aae` adds an explicit required-story discovery guard to the 26 passing Storybook cases. Greptile rates this final head 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. All 30 applicable CI checks passed, with two optional checks skipped. - A repeated live send key suppressed the duplicate but returned gRPC 6 / SDK `internalError` without an original receipt. Paperclip keeps unknown delivery unresolved. This provider behavior is covered by a regression test. - See [the verification record](doc/connections/IMESSAGE-PHOTON-VERIFICATION.md) for package versions, redacted live evidence, deterministic coverage, and remaining qualification gaps. ## Risks - Dedicated group qualification remains unrun; groups are disabled for the approved Pro scope. Real iPhone camera HEIC passed transport, preview generation, agent inspection, and return. Keep the channel experimental; the dedicated-line release matrix remains incomplete. - Shared recovery and attachment aliases were verified against the live gateway. Duplicate writes currently return an error without the original receipt; unresolved sends require operator resolution. The implementation fails visibly on invalid replay ordering, a reset cursor, or changed identity. - The HEIF converter passed on macOS arm64 and in Linux CI. Windows HEIF binaries have not been executed in this work. Linux musl has no packaged converter. Unsupported conversion retains the original and reports the missing preview. - The migration adds a global reservation across companies for Photon numbers and shared projects. Paused and revoked endpoints keep that reservation until removal. - Integration touches shared channel services. Existing provider browser coverage passes; broad repository verification is recorded above. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded under repository policy. The repository bot owns lockfile updates. The additional Superagent supply-chain scan is neutral/inconclusive because these new dependencies are not yet in the committed lockfile. Its security scan passed; all required CI checks pass. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, browser testing, and tool use. The exact served model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. No sub-agents were used. ## 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>	2026-09-12 15:23:50 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	44f6312cd8	fix(ci): reuse one available Cloud registry cache (#13334 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud needs a verified image for each merged source commit. > - Fresh builders restore compiled native dependencies from registry caches. > - The current workflow imports up to eleven historical cache manifests at once. > - Live builds missed native layers that a fresh builder reused from one manifest. > - This PR selects the nearest available cache and tests reuse across fresh builders. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13329 and #13330. A search of open cache PRs found no duplicate of this change. What existing behavior does this improve? Remote Docker cache reuse on fresh Cloud image builders. Current behavior [Cloud run 34714483272](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34714483272/job/103609096836) imported the previous cache manifest successfully but rebuilt `cargo-chef` and Rust dependencies. The dependency compile took 3m43s. The preceding image build had already exported those layers. A controlled [fresh-builder diagnostic](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34715336530) used the same source and registry cache. The single-manifest job reused both layers immediately. The multiple-manifest job rebuilt them and failed the cache assertion. Both jobs used GitHub-hosted runners with read-only access. Proposed behavior Inspect cache manifests in first-parent order and import only the nearest available one. Keep full-SHA cache exports, the ten-commit search bound, and the legacy fallback. If caches cannot be read, permit a cold build. Reason and benefit Avoid the observed cache misses without changing image contents or builder sizes. Expected savings include about four minutes of native tool/dependency compilation when those inputs are unchanged. The final merge-to-deployable gain still needs a post-merge measurement. Breaking changes No image, artifact, deployment, or runner-routing contract changes. ## What Changed - Select one available ancestor cache after Docker login and Buildx setup. - Preserve separate writable cache tags for each full source SHA. - Test cache ordering, missing caches, registry errors, and workflow integration. - Add the selector tests to the existing release-registry suite. - Export a local test cache, remove the first builder, and verify a source rebuild on a fresh builder. - Document cache selection and the stronger Docker check. ## Verification - Passed 456 focused workflow, routing, readiness, preview-artifact, and cache-selector tests. - Passed shell syntax, ShellCheck for the changed probe, actionlint workflow validation, and `git diff --check`. actionlint's shell checks were disabled for the workflow validation because unchanged migration-label commands trigger existing SC2012 notes. - The fresh-builder registry diagnostic proves the single-cache behavior. The [permanent two-builder probe passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34715771048/job/103612624090), including a changed real binary and dependency-declaration invalidation. - Passed all 35 latest-head checks (green or intentionally skipped), including full typecheck, test, build, and browser suites in [PR CI run 34715771217](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34715771217). - The real selector CLI inspected registry metadata and chose the nearest available ancestor cache. - Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 with no open findings. The PR title was corrected to meet the source-change naming rule; the review check passed after that correction. - Local full-suite runs and Docker builds are unavailable because the local Docker daemon is unresponsive after disk exhaustion. CI provides the Linux verification. ## Risks - Missing or unreadable caches cause a slower cold build. The selector logs that condition and preserves image publication. - Inspecting several missing ancestors adds lookup time. Each lookup has a ten-second timeout and the search is bounded. - The Docker test now exports a local cache. It removes the first builder before starting the second to release disk space, then cleans up its builders and files. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## 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>	2026-09-12 13:20:18 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	7435b2ee9c	ci: cache compiled Docker Rust dependencies separately from source (#13329 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud deploys images that contain the native Rust Runner. > - The image already builds that Runner before copying ordinary app source. > - A Rust source change still invalidates its entire compiled dependency layer. > - Compiled dependencies can survive source changes when their recipe is unchanged. > - This PR adds a separate locked dependency build before compiling the real workspace. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13195. A search of related Docker and Cargo cache PRs found no duplicate dependency-recipe change. What existing behavior does this improve? Docker image build time after Rust source or embedded protocol changes. Current behavior The `runner-build` stage compiles dependencies and workspace code in one layer. In Cloud readiness run 34698143548, that stage took about 3m48s when its cache was unavailable. Proposed behavior Generate a recipe with pinned cargo-chef 0.1.73. Build locked release dependencies in `runner-deps`, then copy and compile real Rust source and embedded protocol inputs in `runner-build`. Source edits can reuse the dependency layer from the existing registry cache. Reason and benefit Reduce dependency recompilation during source changes and merge bursts. Expected savings are roughly 2–4 minutes when the old native layer would miss but dependency layers are available. Full cold builds also pay for the recipe tool installation. Ordinary app-only cache hits gain little from this change. Breaking changes None to the shipped application or image tags. The recipe tool and compiled dependencies remain in build stages. ## What Changed - Install a pinned recipe generator with its locked dependencies and the existing package-owned compiler. - Add recipe planning and compiled dependency stages. Use the same release profile, package, binary, and lockfile enforcement as the real native build. - Remove generated source stubs before copying actual source. Preserve protocol inputs, timestamp normalization, binary staging, and application checks. - Add Docker cache wiring regressions and update the Docker cache documentation. - Run a two-build probe in Docker Runner check. It requires dependency reuse, changed real binary metadata after a source edit, and a changed recipe after a dependency declaration edit. It uses a disposable tracked-source context and exports only small metadata files. ## Verification - Passed all five Docker build-stamp and dependency-cache tests with `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/docker-build-stamp.test.ts`. - Passed the local ARM64 `docker buildx build --target runner-build --progress plain`. Local Docker then hit storage errors during a runtime probe; cache invalidation verification continues on GitHub-hosted Linux. - Passed `bash -n scripts/check-docker-runner-cache.sh`, `actionlint`, and `git diff --check`. - Passed a [Linux AMD64 cache probe](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34711042199) against the PR source: dependencies compiled in 3m49s for the baseline and were `CACHED` after a source edit; real source compilation took about 37 seconds. Binary metadata changed and dependency declaration changes altered the recipe. The permanent probe is also running in latest-head Docker Runner check. - Passed latest-head [Docker Runner check](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34711145160), including the permanent source/dependency invalidation probe. - Passed full [PR verification](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34711145352/attempts/2): typecheck, all grouped tests, native verification, build, release dry run, and browser checks. One unrelated signoff-policy browser test failed waiting for a heartbeat run on attempt 1; only that failed shard and dependent checks were retried, and passed. - Latest-head Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Full local tests/build were limited by local disk exhaustion; Linux CI completed those checks. ## Risks - The two-build CI probe has a 20-minute job limit to cover the cold build and source rebuild. It adds no AWS routing. - A fully cold build must install cargo-chef and populate the dependency layer. Both become reusable registry layers; no Actions cache is added. - The recipe and final build must keep the same compiler, build profile, package, binary, and directory layout. A source-change rebuild probe checks real cache reuse and binary invalidation. - Dependency or compiler changes still require rebuilding dependencies. Existing image verification and full-SHA publication gates remain unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## 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>	2026-09-12 11:57:32 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	8df3ee2cf5	ci: rebalance serialized tests with current suite durations (#13328 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud deployments wait for verified source commits. > - Verification splits serialized server tests across independent runners. > - The shard duration estimates came from August and no longer match current tests. > - Stale estimates put much more work on one runner than the others. > - This PR refreshes the estimates from a complete successful run to balance the existing runners. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The time spent waiting for the slowest serialized server-test shard in PR and release verification. Current behavior In [Cloud readiness run 34705914878](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34705914878), the five serialized shards spent 479, 371, 322, 390, and 365 seconds running tests. The recovery suite had a 55-second estimate but now takes about 156 seconds including process overhead. Proposed behavior Use fresh per-suite measurements with the existing deterministic duration balancer. Applying the same measured costs to the new assignment gives 385, 385, 386, 385, and 385 seconds. This predicts about 93 seconds less waiting for the slowest shard, before runner/setup overhead. Live CI will confirm the result. Reason and benefit Use the existing runners more evenly. No extra runner, test parallelism, cache, timeout, or routing change is needed. Breaking changes Suite-to-shard assignments change. The full suite set, assertions, and per-suite process isolation stay the same. Additional context Searched related CI and shard PRs. This updates the existing duration manifest, without duplicating a pending sharding implementation. ## What Changed - Refresh all 145 serialized suite weights from the same successful release verification run. - Record source job IDs and the measurement method in the manifest. Durations include process startup, imports, collection, tests, and shutdown. ## Verification - Passed all 30 shard and release-workflow tests: `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`. - Confirmed every measured suite appears exactly once across all five source logs. - Compared old and new assignments using the same measured weights. The maximum fell from 478862ms to 385551ms. - In [PR CI run 34710696242](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34710696242), all five serialized jobs passed in 7m05s–7m27s including setup. The measured assignment is now balanced in a live run. - The same run passed full typecheck, all grouped tests, native verification, build, release dry run, and browser checks. Local full-suite verification on this base was limited by disk exhaustion; local typecheck and targeted shard tests passed. - Latest-head Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings. Every current-head CI check must be green or intentionally skipped before merge. ## Risks - Individual durations vary with load and future test changes. These estimates affect assignment only; missing or renamed suites receive the existing median weight. - Both PR and release verification read this manifest, so both receive the new assignments. Each suite still runs in its own serialized Vitest process. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## 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>	2026-09-12 11:36:20 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	d2e940f4c1	ci: run release Runner protocol and Rust checks in parallel (#13326 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud deploys verified images from merged source commits. > - Cloud readiness waits for every release verification check. > - Runner verification currently runs long TypeScript tests before Rust checks. > - These checks can run on independent runners with their own build directories. > - This PR runs them in parallel while preserving all checks and the shared dependency cache. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13194. Related prior work: #13142 and #13259. A search found no duplicate parallel release-check change. What existing behavior does this improve? Time from merge to Cloud source verification and deployment readiness. Current behavior Recent successful runs take roughly 13 minutes from merge to deployable. In run 34705914878, Runner verification took 11m23s. Protocol tests finished before Rust tests and API authority checks started. Proposed behavior Run protocol and Rust verification in two matrix jobs. Cloud readiness still requires both jobs to pass. Reason and benefit Remove the serial dependency between independent checks. Expected improvement is about 2–3 minutes on a typical cached run, until the image build or server tests become the longest job. This is an estimate; post-merge timing will confirm it. Breaking changes Individual release Runner job names gain a lane suffix. Cloud source and readiness marker names stay the same. PR runner routing is unchanged. ## What Changed - Split release Runner checks into protocol and Rust lanes. Keep every constituent of `check:all` exactly once. - Restore the existing Rust dependency cache in both lanes. Allow only the Rust lane to save it after warming both build profiles. - Add coverage and cache authorization regressions. Document the parallel verification and single cache writer. ## Verification - Passed 477 workflow and source-verification tests with `node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`. - Passed `actionlint`, `git diff --check`, and the private AWS routing regression suite. - Passed local `pnpm -r typecheck` and the standalone `check:runner && check:api-authority` lane, including all 1,671 API tests before the protocol lane had built TypeScript output. - The broad local protocol run under Node 25 had four failures. The two affected files passed under CI's Node 24.19.0: 67 passed, 6 platform skips. - Local `pnpm test:run` aborted when disk space ran out; local `pnpm build` could not run afterward. These are local verification limits. [Linux CI run 34710421424](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34710421424) passed full typecheck, all grouped tests, native verification, build, release dry run, and browser checks. Native protocol CI passed 1,986 tests, plus 1,671 API tests and the Rust suites. - Latest-head Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings. All 33 current-head checks are successful or intentionally skipped. ## Risks - Uses one additional short-lived verification runner per release verification. The existing AWS exact-master restriction remains in place. - The Rust lane warms debug dependencies so its cache save also serves protocol tests. Both lanes always rebuild workspace code. - A workflow regression could omit a check. The new coverage test compares the matrix checks directly with `check:all`; Cloud readiness depends on the complete reusable workflow. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## 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>	2026-09-12 11:33:20 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	7e6d512597	fix(onboarding): make chief-of-staff hiring reliable (#13317 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The first agent helps the board define work and hire other agents. > - That agent can have the general role while its instructions require hiring skills. > - Missing skills and blocked schema discovery make valid requests fail. > - Repeated confirmation and invalid waiting guidance can turn these failures into extra runs. > - This PR supplies the required skills, opens read-only schema discovery, and corrects the guidance. > - The agent can complete an authorized hire while company approval and duplicate checks still apply. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13068 — the first-task onboarding flow that this change repairs. Refs #12029 — related drift between the sandbox allowlist and bundled hiring guidance. This PR adds schema access; it does not replace the earlier hiring-route fix. What happened? A general-role onboarding chief received hiring instructions without the core hiring skills. Sandbox requests to the documented OpenAPI endpoint failed. The agent then guessed question and hire payloads. The persona required new confirmation after validation errors and described waiting states that agents cannot set. Expected behavior A direct request authorizes the requested hire. The chief asks only for material missing details, uses valid API payloads, and completes the task. Formal company approval gates still apply. A saved human-input card gives the task a valid waiting state. Steps to reproduce 1. Create an onboarding chief with role `general` through the board. 2. Ask it to hire a friendly robot with a supplied name and responsibilities. 3. Check its assigned skills, schema requests, question cards, hire requests, and final task state. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on the first-task onboarding implementation after #13068. The live local verification used this branch at `112f44610`. Deployment mode The original failure used a hosted sandbox with legacy Codex ACP. Live verification used an isolated local instance and real `codex_local` execution. Queue and HTTP/2 transport access is covered by automated tests. ## What Changed - Give board-created onboarding chiefs the existing core skills regardless of role. Preserve explicit skill version pins, including aliases. Keep ordinary general-agent defaults and authorization checks. - Allow exactly `GET /api/openapi.json` through both sandbox bridge transports. - Publish validator-tested question, free-text, hire, and waiting examples. Regenerate the runner API reference and capability inventory. - Clarify direct authorization, material ambiguity, and correction of confirmed pre-creation validation failures. Preserve uncertain-outcome reconciliation, duplicate protection, and company approval gates. - Align disposition instructions with agent permissions and the saved human-input waiting path. ## Verification - After rebasing onto current `master`: 69 targeted server tests, 110 queue/HTTP2 bridge tests, and 4 capability inventory tests passed. These cover core skill defaults, version pins, actor restrictions, schema access, published examples, hire validation, idempotency, and approval gates. Waiting recovery tests and live question flows also passed before the rebase. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed again after the rebase. Frozen dependency installation and both generated capability checks passed. - Ran the full `pnpm test:run` suite. The initial run had 14 failed server files due to local database resource limits, a missing built test fixture, and socket failures. All 14 files passed after fixture repair and isolated retries. UI, CLI, workspace packages, database tests, and all 145 serialized server files passed. - Real one-request hiring replay: one hire, one successful run, task done in 2m16s. No repeated approval or recovery escalation. - Real two-turn browser conversation: start with an unspecified hire, then supply a name and friendly robot responsibilities. One clarification card, one hire, two successful runs, task done in 3m27s of execution. No failed writes, confirmation cards, or recovery actions. - Assigned the hired robot a welcome-message task through the browser. It produced a warm message under 100 words and finished in one successful 66-second run, with no questions or recovery actions. - The two-turn flow still asked an optional preferences question and gave a technical final reply. These are remaining presentation limits. - Greptile: 5/5 on `b71f83ba2`, with zero unresolved review threads. Fixed its generator finding and passed 1,655 published-example/runtime API tests plus server typecheck. All latest-head CI checks are green (32 passed; 2 unrelated Storybook checks skipped). The signoff-policy browser test initially timed out while waiting for an approver run. Its shard passed on one rerun without code changes. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34698211049). ## Risks - Onboarding chiefs receive more default skills. Ordinary general agents retain existing defaults, and explicit versions take precedence. - Prompt guidance can affect model behavior. The live replays are examples, not a guarantee that every model follows the guidance. - Retry guidance applies only when validation confirms that nothing was created. Uncertain outcomes still require checking existing agents. - No database migration or new public endpoint. Existing company boundaries, approval gates, and bounded recovery remain in force. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-6-astra`, with reasoning, tool use, code editing, and live browser verification. The exact context-window size is 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>	2026-09-12 12:59:42 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	ab15aff390	feat: add experimental persistent agent chat (#13284 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Conversations must use the same tasks, controls, and execution history. > - Users need an ongoing chat with an agent without managing task properties. > - Agents should clarify and plan work, then hand execution to assigned project tasks. > - This pull request combines the reviewed Agent Chat stack for one squash merge. > - The benefit is persistent conversation with normal task governance and shared UI. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Task lifecycle, agent runtime tools, shared task UI, and browser/paid runner tests. Problem or motivation Users need one persistent conversation with each agent. A separate chat store or renderer would duplicate task behavior and bypass existing controls. Proposed solution Use a task-backed chat per company, user, and agent. Reuse the task composer and transcript. Clarify and plan in chat, then create assigned project tasks with the relevant plan. Keep Agent Chat behind its own disabled-by-default experimental setting. Roadmap alignment This implements the task-backed direction in [CEO Chat](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/master/ROADMAP.md#-ceo-chat). Related proposals: #2504 and #9693. Related request: #7981. The maintainer requested one squash merge of the complete stack. Consolidates the reviewed runtime [#13281](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13281), backend [#13282](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13282), and UI [#13283](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13283) layers with this PR's E2E coverage. All four layers passed CI and received Greptile 5/5 before consolidation. This PR targets master and includes the complete feature. ## What Changed - Add personal canonical chat tasks with ordinary company visibility, immutable identity, idempotent first sends, and an idle waiting state. - Process `/new` in queue order. Preserve history, release a chat pause, and fence old provider context and delayed writes. - Keep chat lifecycle rules across recovery, finalization, assignment, task lists, and rollups. - Support research and plan revision in chat. Hand plans to ordinary assigned project tasks before execution starts. Reject new chat subtasks. - Add repository-aware project creation and discovery tools, including multiple repository IDs and GitHub URLs, authorization, idempotency, and durable project-created cards. - Reuse task UI components for chat, with starred/recent agent navigation and a separate `enableAgentChat` experimental flag. - Add deterministic browser tests and 24 paid chat cells across four Codex/Claude profiles, with validated reports and screenshots. - Integrate current master recovery, controller lease, queued-message, and task UI changes. Gate chat interruption and deferred promotion on ownership/feature policy. Guarantee lease renewal and active controls are stopped even if teardown fails. - Preserve master's migration 0273 and generate chat migration 0274 with idempotent replay for development databases. ## Verification - Prior exact heads of all four PRs passed Linux CI, including build, typecheck, general/serialized tests, and browser E2E. Each had Greptile 5/5 and no unresolved findings. - Integrated local verification passed: full repository typecheck and production build, Storybook build, token gates, 340 focused UI tests, all 20 deterministic chat browser tests, two migration replay tests, 88 focused chat/queue/native/controller tests, and provider/session regressions including real lease expiry. These include the three lifecycle regressions for the final admission/teardown fixes; server typecheck also passes. Current head `1268eda16cc2af892055917e7292f068820be135` has Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings and passing security scans. All final-head CI gates passed: build, full Runner verification, typecheck/release registry, canary, all general/serialized test shards, and all browser E2E shards ([CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34696739927)). Local PostgreSQL startup contention required serialized retries; skipped fixtures do not count as passing coverage. - The earlier paid campaign passed all 24 chat cells and retained 32 screenshots: [report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-34648511170-1/index.html?report=agent-chat#suite-agent-chat). It tested `abacbdfd2f660709ec37312cdb758284c8399d04`; it is prior evidence, not a paid run of this integrated head. - Manual check: enable Agent Chat in Experimental settings, open an agent, clarify and revise a plan, then hand off to an assigned project task. Stop a reply, send `/new`, and verify fresh context with retained history. Disable the setting and verify agent shortcuts/new chat turns are blocked. ## Risks - Queue/session integration can affect retries and delayed writes. Tests cover ownership, cancellation, reset boundaries, idle recovery, and ordinary task behavior. - Migration 0274 adds conversation fields and constraints. Replay is idempotent and preserves existing development chat history. - This combines the previously reviewed stack at the maintainer's request. Agent Chat remains off by default and is separate from Conference Room. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 Astra (`gpt-6-astra`), with reasoning, code execution, browser tools, and parallel review. The exact context-window size is not exposed in this session. Codex and Claude also ran as test subjects in the linked paid campaign. ## 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>	2026-09-12 08:56:04 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	44dde2dec4	ci: reuse dependency caches without per-PR uploads (#13300 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud releases wait for source verification before deployment. > - That verification reuses compiled Rust dependencies to finish sooner. > - PR jobs save large pnpm stores under separate merge refs and different lockfile keys. > - Those copies compete with master build caches for the repository's 10 GB cache limit. > - This PR makes PR dependency caches restore-only and reuses master-compatible keys. > - A separate pin update will activate the reviewed workflow. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? PR merge refs accumulated roughly 700 MB copies of the same pnpm store. Master Rust caches disappeared, and Cloud readiness run [34656098157](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34656098157) rebuilt dependencies after cache misses. The repository currently has a 10 GB limit. GitHub rejected a request for 50 GB; that setting needs separate organization/billing access. Expected behavior PR jobs should reuse downloaded packages without evicting post-merge compilation caches through duplicate uploads. Steps to reproduce 1. Run several PRs while the checked-in lockfile needs policy regeneration. 2. Compare the setup-node keys in PR jobs and master jobs. 3. List Actions caches by ref, key, and archive size. The PR keys repeat across merge refs. Paperclip version or commit `f12b647ae`, before this change. Deployment mode GitHub Actions, with GitHub-hosted and allowlisted AWS PR runners. Refs #13267 (empty pnpm store prevention). Searched open issues and PRs for pnpm cache duplication and found no duplicate implementation. This change leaves the paused capacity documentation PR #13280 alone. ## What Changed - Replace setup-node cache writes with pinned `actions/cache/restore` in all seven PR install job definitions. - Restore against the checked-in lockfile before downloading the regenerated policy artifact. Keep every install frozen against that artifact. - Allow an OS/architecture-specific pnpm fallback and disable automatic setup-node caching. - Remove dependency-store caching from the resolution-only policy job. - Add eight regression tests, update the existing stacked-lockfile cache assertion, and document cache behavior and storage settings. ## Verification - Passed 505 workflow, routing, cache, and source-verification tests: `node --test '.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs' scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs`. - Passed `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml` and `git diff --check`. - The AWS routing gate is unchanged. Author, event sender, and rerun actor must still be allowlisted. - This definition PR does not change the active `pr.yml` pin. After review and merge, authorize its immutable merge SHA additively and activate it in a separate PR. Verify a populated restore and no cache uploads in an allowlisted PR. - All 32 checks passed or were intentionally skipped on `44b31eca590f61b75cae646de43c491b6c4deae7`, including full native Runner verification, application build, server/workspace tests, and browser shards. Current-head Greptile is 5/5 with no findings. No application code changes in this PR. ## Risks - New dependencies present only in a PR may download again on each run until master saves a cache containing them. Frozen installation remains the source of dependency resolution. - Missing or expired stores fall back to normal package downloads. - Existing PR copies remain until expiry or a separate targeted cleanup. No cache entries are deleted here. - The workflow only takes effect after the separate immutable pin rotation. Storage billing settings are not changed by this PR. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## 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>	2026-09-11 17:31:15 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	30c63af0e6	fix(cli): recover abandoned workspace build locks (#13288 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The test-drive command starts an isolated instance for local testing. > - Source startup builds shared packages before it starts the server. > - An interrupted build can leave an empty lock directory. > - Later starts wait without output and fail after 60 seconds. > - This pull request recovers abandoned locks and shows build progress. > - Local testing can start again without manual lock removal. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? `pnpm paperclipai test-drive` stopped at “Starting Paperclip server…” in a source checkout. A leftover plugin build lock caused a silent 60-second wait and then a timeout. Expected behavior Startup should recover an abandoned build lock. It should show when it waits for a live build. An interrupted or failed build should not leave partial output that the next start accepts as complete. Steps to reproduce 1. Leave an empty `node_modules/.cache/paperclip-plugin-build-deps.lock` directory after an interrupted build. 2. Make the shared or plugin SDK build output out of date. 3. Run `pnpm paperclipai test-drive --api-key placeholder --no-browser` with a fresh data directory. 4. Observe the silent wait at server startup. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced at `2083bf6f9`. Deployment mode Local source checkout with an isolated embedded PostgreSQL instance. Related work: #12894 added test-drive. #12898 restored its credential inputs. Neither change handles abandoned workspace build locks. No duplicate fix was found. ## What Changed - Publish a lock directory with an owner record in one rename. - Recover locks after their owner and compiler exit. Recover legacy empty locks after two minutes. - Keep the lock until the compiler stops on SIGINT or SIGTERM. - Print build and lock-wait progress. - Record source, dependency, compiler-config, and output content fingerprints only after a successful compile. Recover partial output even when modification times are unchanged. - Add 12 process-level regression tests and update the development guide. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/ensure-plugin-build-deps.test.mjs`: 12 tests pass. - `pnpm exec vitest run --config cli/vitest.config.ts cli/src/__tests__/test-drive.test.ts`: 32 tests pass. - `pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm --filter paperclipai build`: passed. - Live smoke tests: fresh startup and startup with an abandoned lock both reach ready state. The API and UI respond. The command creates the company and CEO and enables worktree execution. Test instances stop cleanly. - Full repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed. - Full Vitest suite coverage completed using the repository-supported server, chat, workspace, and serialized shards. The initial local run needed the fresh-worktree fake native-provider binary built and focused reruns for port/socket races and load-related timeouts; all affected tests passed on rerun. Suites skipped by fail-fast exits were run separately and passed. The initial serial `pnpm test:run` was stopped in favor of these shards. - Greptile: 5/5 on commit `8b5a790c2af06a52b5dc76e5f52331966df990b8`, with all review threads resolved. - CI: 31 checks passed and two Storybook checks intentionally skipped. The initial workspace and browser jobs were interrupted by runner shutdowns; both passed on the second attempt. Build, typecheck, canary dry run, all general and serialized tests, all browser shards, security checks, and final verification summaries are green. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34654730783) ## Risks - This changes shared source-build locking for the CLI and plugin SDK commands. - Legacy locks have no owner identity. Recovery uses a two-minute age threshold for empty legacy directories. - Startup reads and hashes source and output files to verify the build cache. Identical direct builds reuse the cache. Changed or partial output requires a rebuild. - A reused process ID can delay recovery. Live owner or compiler processes keep their lock. - No database, API, or UI contract changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex, with reasoning, tool use, code execution, and process-level testing. A more specific API model identifier 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 #` 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>	2026-09-11 18:25:42 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9031516a7e	fix: recover legacy Daytona startup failures from task and inbox (#13272 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Legacy conversation adapters can run in Daytona sandboxes. > - A server restart during provisioning can occur before the invocation event exists. > - Recovery then lacks the old adapter identity and leaves a hold that ordinary user retries cannot clear. > - A remote launch can also fail when its host relay looks for Node in the sandbox PATH. > - This pull request records the adapter at claim time and restores explicit user continuation after verified cleanup. > - Users can recover from the task or inbox while the failed run and uncertain action history remain intact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13237, #13239, #13254. Those changes cover recorded conversation runs, native user continuation, and explicit remote Stop. This change covers legacy failure before `adapter.invoke` and exact task/inbox Retry. Refs #9771 for overlapping generated-command quoting. This change also supplies the absolute host Node executable. Refs #13163 and #13264 for the separate native restart and retained-workspace work. What happened? A legacy Daytona run interrupted during provisioning became `process_lost` without an invocation event. Recovery preserved an execution hold, and Retry or a new task reply could not resume it. Cleanup could also run before the Daytona plugin was ready. On a macOS host, a subsequent ACP relay launch failed with `env: node: No such file or directory` because the remote launch environment did not contain the host Node path. Expected behavior An interrupted conversation can continue after its previous execution stops. Explicit Retry and new user replies should start a fresh turn with the task history. Cleanup failures must remain visible and recoverable. The host relay must use the host Node executable. Steps to reproduce 1. Use a legacy Claude adapter with a Daytona environment. 2. Interrupt the server after it acquires the sandbox lease and before it records `adapter.invoke`. 3. Restart and inspect the task hold. 4. Retry from the task or inbox, or send a new task reply. 5. Confirm the old sandbox has stopped and one new response arrives. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced from master at `3bafac12f796fbea02e609e1074a9639f872e9c4`. The branch is rebased on `51b0e01ea`, including #13261 and #13270. Deployment mode Built from source on macOS with a real Daytona sandbox and the legacy Claude ACP adapter. ## What Changed - Count new browser specs with the scheduler's median duration in the shard-balance check. This fixes a false policy failure after new specs arrive from both branches. The balance threshold is unchanged. - Persist server-owned adapter identity in the queued-to-running claim before provisioning starts. - Wait for provider plugin startup before restart cleanup. Keep failed cleanup leases as active ownership blockers. - Admit exact board retries and new user comments after verified termination. Retain the old run, task history, approvals, and unknown action outcomes. - Adopt repeated Retry requests. Permit one scoped cleanup attempt per explicit user Retry after the automatic limit, with an activity record. A later user Retry can recover after a transient provider failure; automatic attempts remain capped. - Resume replies deferred during cleanup, including historical legacy startup failures. - Launch the host ACP relay through the absolute host Node executable. - Add a task-level Retry button and return actionable blockers when retry admission is refused. - Add database regressions and three browser recovery journeys. Exclude installed third-party dependency skills from the shipped-skill audit. ## Verification - Current head: `d23c84181`, rebased on `51b0e01ea`. Conflict resolution retains the saved-message recovery, local stop receipts, and wait reasons from #13270 alongside exact legacy Retry support. - Real Daytona: interrupted the server after lease acquisition and before adapter invocation. Restart cleanup confirmed provider termination. Task Retry cleared a seeded historical hold and a real Claude agent returned `Recovery verified.` in the task. Removed the disposable sandbox and environment after testing. - All three browser recovery journeys passed again after the final rebase. Task Retry, Inbox Retry, and a new reply each produced one fresh successor, completed the task, preserved the failed run, and retained the answer after reload. - All 29 e2e/server shard-partition tests passed. The balance check now uses the scheduler's median fallback for unmeasured specs, with the same balance threshold. - Server typecheck passed after rebuilding the generated runner dependencies. The combined recovery/route run passed 136 of 137 tests. Its remaining route test timed out during the first cold module import at its explicit 10-second limit; an isolated rerun reproduced that timeout and passed the other 51 route cases. The complete CI suite passed on this head. The same route file passed all 52 cases in CI, including the first cold import in 7.5 seconds. - Before the final rebase, recursive typecheck, full build, UI token gates, 132 targeted server tests, and the complete [CI workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34650004085) passed. The subsequent CI failure was the shard-balance accounting mismatch fixed here. - Greptile reviewed `d23c84181` at 5/5 with no outstanding actionable findings. The complete [current CI workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34653327949) passed on attempt 2. All test, typecheck, build, and canary jobs passed on the first attempt. Docker setup timed out fetching BuildKit from Docker Hub; retrying that job and its dependent aggregate succeeded. ## Risks - Recovery admission changes executable authority. Company, task, agent, user, approvals, process ownership, and provider termination checks remain required. - Explicit continuation starts a fresh conversation with history. It does not certify unknown external action outcomes or rerun non-conversation adapters automatically. - Changing task status alone does not clear an execution hold. The task now offers an explicit Retry action. - Historical adapter claims and invocation events take precedence over current agent settings. Known process or webhook runs retain their hold. Pre-upgrade rows with no adapter evidence may receive only a new explicit user turn after termination proof; they do not become eligible for automatic replay. - No schema migration or sandbox-image change is required. This branch has not been deployed to production. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, code execution, browser automation, and test execution. The exact deployment model ID and context window 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 - [ ] 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>	2026-09-11 18:08:14 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	37d7dfb0e3	ci: allow dependency changes in cloud eval verification (#13286 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud deployment requires source verification for the exact merged commit. > - Contributor PRs leave lockfile updates to a separate bot PR. > - Most release checks can refresh an outdated lockfile while installing dependencies. > - Two Runner checks still require a frozen lockfile and fail after dependency changes. > - This PR gives those checks the same install policy as the other release checks. > - A valid dependency change can become deployable without waiting for another merge. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13257. The dependency change in #13256 exposed this gap. The separate lockfile update is #13279. Related #12115 addresses the bot PR check trigger; this PR fixes exact-source cloud verification itself. What happened? [Cloud readiness for `2083bf6`](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34651761811) failed in the Runner scorer and chaos jobs with `ERR_PNPM_OUTDATED_LOCKFILE`. The commit added `svix` to server dependencies. The tracked lockfile still describes the previous manifest. The other release checks install with `--no-frozen-lockfile`. Expected behavior Every source check installs and tests the same checked-out commit. A pending bot lockfile PR must not block cloud readiness. Steps to reproduce 1. Check out master commit `250deab`, which retains the manifest/lockfile mismatch. 2. Run `pnpm install --ignore-scripts --frozen-lockfile`. It fails with the same outdated-lockfile error. 3. Run `pnpm install --ignore-scripts --no-frozen-lockfile --resolution-only`. It succeeds. 4. Restore the generated lockfile. This PR does not commit it. ## What Changed - Use `--no-frozen-lockfile` in the release Runner scorer job. - Use the same option in the reusable Runner chaos workflow. - Document why cloud source checks allow a job-local lockfile refresh. - Update the existing Runner scorer workflow assertion to match its install policy. ## Verification - All 457 workflow tests pass across `.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs` and `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`. - `actionlint` passes for both changed workflows. - Reproduced the frozen install failure against the real tracked manifest and lockfile. The refresh command passes in 4.6 seconds. - `git diff --check` passes. No lockfile changes remain. - No application source changes. Full local application typecheck, build, and test commands were not rerun in this dependency-free workflow worktree. Current-head GitHub CI must pass before merge. - After merge, verify both affected jobs pass on the exact master source even if the lockfile bot PR remains pending. ## Risks pnpm can resolve allowed dependency ranges when a manifest outgrows the tracked lockfile. This matches the existing release install policy. The resulting lockfile stays in the job workspace. Verification commands and runner routing are unchanged. The security reviewer explicitly accepted this existing dependency-policy tradeoff for both jobs after reviewing repository policy and the source/authorization checks. A future shared immutable dependency artifact would improve reproducibility across jobs. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## 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] Local verification passes: all 457 workflow tests, actionlint, and the stale-lockfile reproduction described 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-11 15:56:21 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	2083bf6f9a	feat(connections): add AgentMail inboxes and email tasks (#13256 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Connections give agents controlled access to external services. > - Experimental channels already map conversations to tasks and durable work queues. > - Email needs inbox ownership, recipient envelopes, delivery records, and explicit sends. > - This pull request adds AgentMail to that infrastructure and keeps the provider key in the server vault. > - Agents can receive and send email from local or sandbox execution while the board follows each conversation in its task. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Problem or motivation Agents need dedicated email addresses. Incoming email should become assigned work. Internal task comments and progress must never become outgoing email by accident. Proposed solution Add experimental AgentMail connections, an inbox assignment wizard, durable email intake and publication, task email cards, and authenticated API, CLI, and native runtime actions. Agents use Paperclip credentials to request sends. Paperclip owns the provider key and enforces access and task authority. Alternatives considered A general mailbox MCP connector does not provide durable task binding or publication boundaries. A separate mailbox application duplicates task collaboration. The board instead directs the agent through the normal task conversation. Roadmap alignment This extends the existing experimental connections and task infrastructure. Product scope and interaction design were reviewed with the maintainer. Related connection authority work: #11831 and #11818. The duplicate search found no competing task-based AgentMail integration. ## What Changed - Add AgentMail catalog data, shared contracts, company-scoped email records, and an additive migration. - Add vaulted setup, inbox assignment, access grants, trust guidance, and provider-side allowlist guidance. - Support WebSocket and signed-webhook intake through a shared durable pipeline, deduplication, catch-up, and task wakeups. - Queue explicit new conversations and replies with immutable send intents, idempotency, delivery state, and uncertain-send resolution. - Show inbound and outbound email cards in normal task conversations. Keep internal messages internal. - Add task-scoped CLI actions and the sandbox callback routes required for Daytona execution. - Provide a dedicated AgentMail skill automatically only to agents with active authorized inbox assignments. Keep email instructions out of the universal Paperclip skill. - Advertise connector-owned `agentmail_inboxes`, `agentmail_read_thread`, `agentmail_send`, and `agentmail_delivery` tools only in eligible native sessions. Recheck live authority on execution. - Isolate Codex CLI connector skills by agent and skill revision. Deliver the assigned skill in the run prompt for adapters that use shared skill directories, including resumed turns. Keep automatic skills out of manual persistent sync. Show them as read-only and document the pattern in the connector playbook. - Fix AgentMail health checks that entered local-stdio validation and optional missing Codex credential cleanup in sandboxes. - Add API, pipeline, authorization, sandbox, browser, and Storybook coverage. ## Verification - Live AgentMail testing covered WebSocket intake, signed webhooks, restart catch-up, and a full receive → task → Daytona Codex CLI → explicit reply → Delivered round trip. The reply was verified in the other inbox. The normal task composer also initiated an outgoing email child task. - The connector-skill change was verified in the browser: AgentMail appears once as an automatic, read-only skill with its assigned address. Disabling experimental chat connections removes it; re-enabling restores it. A regression test covers assignment data arriving after library data. - Connector regression coverage passed 178 runtime utility, email integration, skill-route, and heartbeat tests. All 17 Codex execution tests passed, including per-agent skill isolation, model identity, revision changes, removal, and prompt delivery without shared skill files. - After rebasing onto master, all 44 focused email, heartbeat, and native-authority tests passed. All 313 native-session executor tests passed. The UI regression suite passed all 3 tests. These test sets overlap earlier focused runs. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed after the rebase. Token gates passed. Earlier focused Playwright task/setup coverage and the Storybook build also passed. - Native connector tool execution uses deterministic integration tests. Live Daytona qualification used the Codex CLI adapter; the new shared-home prompt fallback has deterministic coverage. - The full repository suite is run by CI. The earlier unsharded local full-suite attempt was stopped after the equivalent CI suites passed and is not reported as a completed local run. Greptile reviewed `7e57dc267a8446d3c906e3cc5b8abc94fb8860eb` at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. All server, workspace, serialized server, and browser suites passed in CI. The build job hit a five-second timeout in a runner transport test; both variants and the full 80-test file passed locally with unchanged timeouts. The build passed on retry on the same commit without code or timeout changes. All required CI gates, including the final `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` summaries, are green on `7e57dc267a8446d3c906e3cc5b8abc94fb8860eb`. ## Risks - Email from external senders can start normal agent work. Setup recommends a low-trust agent and AgentMail sender controls. Sender addresses never grant board membership. - Provider timeouts can leave uncertain sends. Retries retain their idempotency key; expired windows require reconciliation or operator resolution. - Connector skills and native tools are assignment-dependent and require current access. Revocation denies retained calls; assignment changes select a new runtime context. - Activation remains behind the experimental-channel setting. The native runner path has deterministic coverage; live Daytona qualification used the Codex CLI adapter. - Schema changes are additive. Inbox ownership is unique across companies. Disconnect preserves provider inboxes and task history. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex). Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size were 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>	2026-09-11 16:56:38 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3bafac12f7	refactor: remove automatic productivity reviews (#13263 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its recovery loop keeps assigned work moving after execution failures. > - Productivity review used run counts, comment counts, and elapsed time to create management tasks. > - Infrastructure failures could satisfy those rules and create more tasks without evidence that the source work needed management review. > - This pull request removes that detector and its continuation holds. > - Bounded recovery, budgets, explicit blockers, and normal review stages remain in place. > - Existing task records stay readable and unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #5897. That request describes unwanted automatic productivity reviews and asks to preserve existing tasks. This change retires the feature instead of adding another configuration switch. Related prior approaches: Refs #9191, Refs #12489. Those changes excluded infrastructure failures or bounded review creation. This removal replaces the detector rather than tuning its thresholds. ## What Changed - Delete the scheduled detector, automatic task creation, evidence refresh, and productivity continuation holds. - Remove computed productivity fields, special attention items, badges, and Storybook fixtures. - Retain historical origin values, decision compatibility, and recovery recursion exclusions. Add no migration and change no existing task data. - Update the execution contract. Replace feature tests with regressions for legacy task reads, ordinary attention, and bounded continuation in the presence of an old review. ## Verification - Targeted attention, issue-route, startup, and UI tests: 4 files and 101 tests passed. - Updated issue-route and UI tests: 2 files and 61 tests passed. - Bounded continuation regression: 2 cases passed, including a legacy review plus pre-dispatch cancellation churn. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: all four gates passed. - `git diff --check`: passed. - `pnpm build-storybook`: passed. - Greptile: 5/5 on `a5a612eea`, with no actionable findings. - Scheduler and historical recovery regressions: 2 files and 28 tests passed. - Repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed. - The complete `pnpm test:run` suite passed across the CI server, serialized-server, and workspace shards on `a5a612eea`. Stopped the duplicate local monolithic run after the full CI suite passed; no completed local full-suite result is claimed. The targeted local suites above passed. - CI serialized shard 5 initially hit a 10-second timeout in the first interaction-route test. The complete file passed locally (78 tests), then the single CI rerun passed. - All CI gates are green, including the build and end-to-end suites. - A local merge check against current `master` (`ce09ea40b`) completed without conflicts. ## Risks - API responses no longer include the computed `productivityReview` field. Consumers must stop using it. - The scheduler no longer creates management work from elapsed time, run counts, or missing comments. This is the intended behavior change. - Existing review tasks and explicit dependencies remain in place. Historical origins still prevent recursive recovery treatment. No task cleanup or data migration occurs. - The native review handoff repair is separate from this removal. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact runtime model identifier 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>	2026-09-11 15:46:35 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	b1efd65edc	fix: continue interrupted task conversations with bounded retries (#13237 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks. > - A task can outlive a provider process or a server restart. > - Legacy recovery treated unknown tool outcomes as a permanent execution hold. > - That hold could also reject a later user message. > - A conversation turn can use prior history without replaying prior tool calls. > - This pull request lets supported conversation adapters continue within the existing retry budget. > - Users can send a new message after automatic attempts stop. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A server restart could interrupt a local ACP run and leave its task behind a permanent recovery hold. A later user message could be cancelled before the provider answered. The immediate recovery path could also create a successor outside the durable failure counter. Expected behavior Continue with a bounded new conversation turn. Preserve a compatible provider session or use full task context when it is unavailable. Do not replay recorded tools. When automatic attempts stop, allow a new user request through the normal execution gates. Steps to reproduce 1. Start a task with a local conversation adapter. 2. Restart the server while the provider is working. 3. Let the previous run become interrupted. 4. Send a follow-up message and observe the recovery hold on the old behavior. Related work: Refs #13075 for durable task recovery. Refs #12946 for retry-limit and checkout-lock handling. This change routes conversation recovery through the existing bounded scheduler. ## What Changed - Mark supported local conversation failures for continuation. Keep native-runner and non-conversation recovery rules. - Carry an interruption notice into the next turn. Retain stopped ACP session history even when a write outcome is unknown. - Clear unavailable ACP sessions so the next bounded attempt can use full task context. - Route immediate failure recovery through the same durable scheduler as process-loss recovery. Release only the predecessor checkout when its retry takes ownership. - Retire obsolete conversation holds using immutable run evidence, in bounded batches with an activity record. Preserve outcome evidence and do not wake historical tasks. - Block actual admission and Resume while a predecessor process or environment lease is still active. Keep the original interruption notice after a rejected wake. Preserve the upstream blocked-wake waiting contract: bounded retry planning can happen during cleanup, while deferred messages and execution remain gated. - Add subprocess and database regression tests. Update the execution contract. - Add the current thread-status field to the native recovery provider fixture so its damaged-journal test reaches the intended boundary. Tolerate an already-exited fixture process during test cleanup while still asserting both processes terminate. ## Verification - Workspace typecheck passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Build passed: `pnpm build`. - Module boundaries passed: `pnpm check:module-boundaries`. - Focused tests passed: 293 recovery/session/dispatch tests, 66 retry and response-gate tests, and 37 native-session tests. Some suites overlap. - Tests cover interrupted writes, missing sessions, concurrent retries, restart persistence, pending questions and approvals, execution gates, and historical holds. - Built the Rust test executables with `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner build:rust` for native-runner verification. - Full Vitest coverage verified locally using the repository’s general and serialized shards, with focused reruns for failures and files not reached after a shard stopped. The ownership-gate regression is fixed and the complete affected server shard passes (1,390 tests). Local parallel runs also hit temporary-directory, resource, and timing failures; those suites pass with canonical temporary paths and sequential reruns. No test timeouts were increased. - Final merged-branch regression run: 577 tests pass across process recovery, retry scheduling, liveness, durable chat, wake-queue application/adapter, dispatch, continuation, native sessions, and task chat. Earlier focused verification also passed 19 native control tests. Token gates and whitespace validation pass. - Browser verification passed all three ACP Stop/continue/pause scenarios, including a rerun after merging the upstream waiting behavior: `PAPERCLIP_E2E_PORT=3397 pnpm test:e2e tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. The interrupted-write case verifies that follow-up completes without a repeated write. - Final-head [CI run 34625037394](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34625037394) passed on `06ac4bd9d150f8b209a96e5fd609c696958794a0`: all 31 reported checks are green, including server/workspace suites, all browser shards, native runner verification, build, typecheck, release dry run, and aggregate gates. The two conditional Storybook checks were skipped. Greptile reviewed this exact commit at 5/5; all review threads are resolved. ## Risks - A new model turn can choose to repeat an action. Paperclip does not replay recorded tool calls and does not certify unknown action outcomes. - Conversation adapters now stop after their retry budget instead of requiring action reconciliation. Explicit Stop, pause, dependency, approval, budget, and ownership gates remain in force. - No schema migration or dependency changes. Historical holds are folded without changing task status or waking work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. The session does not expose a more specific model build 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>	2026-09-11 12:16:04 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	4fde92107e	fix(ci): reuse cloud source verification for npm canaries (#13233 ) Reuse the exact master source-verification result before npm canary publication, removing a duplicate verification matrix while preserving fail-closed release checks. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-11 09:26:26 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	96bba78fba	feat: add readable Storybook branch bookmarks (#13231 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Maintainers use Storybook previews to review the board UI. > - Branch previews need stable bookmarks that people can read. > - The current publisher only provides a hashed branch path. > - This pull request adds a readable branch bookmark after each successful upload. > - Existing branch and build links keep working. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13226. What existing behavior does this improve? Manual Storybook publication for repository branches. Current behavior The stable branch path contains a hash. The expected `/storybook/branches/master/` URL does not exist. Proposed behavior Each publication updates a readable bookmark. The action summary and Markdown artifact link it. Master uses `/storybook/branches/master/`. Other names use a safe path segment that preserves case and escapes special characters. Reason and benefit Maintainers can save and share a readable URL that opens the latest published branch build. Breaking changes None. Existing hashed branch entries still update. Existing build URLs remain valid. Additional context This follows the publisher in #13226. A duplicate search found no related bookmark change. It does not overlap planned core work in ROADMAP.md. ## What Changed - Generate readable branch bookmarks without collisions with existing build directories. - Upload the bookmark only after the full build and compatibility entry uploads succeed. - Link the bookmark in the existing summary and Markdown artifact. - Document branch-name escaping and test path isolation, stable links, and upload order. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-deploy.test.mjs`: 20 tests pass. - `actionlint .github/workflows/storybook-deploy.yml .github/workflows/storybook-visual.yml`: passes. - `git diff --check`: passes. - [Master bookmark publication](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34613344758): passed. Opened `/storybook/branches/master/` in the browser and confirmed a story renders. Downloaded the Markdown report and verified its bookmark link. - [Feature branch bookmark publication](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34613449034): passed. Its separate bookmark uses `codex~2Fstorybook-bookmarks`. - Greptile: 5/5 on `dccaf10413ecf447cb34e622b6b3c505791abb51`, with no unresolved review threads. All current-head Paperclip CI gates pass, including typecheck, tests, build, browser suites, and the canary dry run. - Full local repository checks were not repeated for this focused publisher change. The preceding run passed typecheck but encountered unrelated native-session test failures. ## Risks - Special characters in branch names use `~HH` byte escapes. For example, `feature/foo` becomes `feature~2Ffoo`. - Names that could overlap an existing hashed build directory escape the final hyphen. Very long names retain a hash suffix. - The two branch entries update separately. If the final upload fails, the workflow fails and a rerun can repair the bookmark. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, shell tools, and live deployment verification. The exact runtime 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>	2026-09-11 10:19:36 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	974949a39b	ci: spread cloud server verification across ten runners (#13227 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud waits for source verification before deploying a new image. > - The slowest server verification job spends about ten minutes running tests. > - Each job uses one test worker to preserve test isolation. > - This pull request distributes those suites across ten standard hosted runners. > - The benefit is a shorter verification path with the same test coverage. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Current behavior In [readiness run 34572340764](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34572340764), the slowest server job ran for 638 seconds. Test execution used 594 seconds. This held readiness behind the image job. Proposed behavior Use ten general server jobs in the reusable release verification workflow. Keep the three chat jobs and every existing prerequisite. The complete partition test verifies that no server suite is omitted or duplicated. Reason and benefit Reduce merge-to-deployable time on the existing runner type. The next longest prerequisite was Runner verification at 526 seconds, so the initial expected total gain is about two minutes rather than a halving of readiness time. Measure actual queue and execution time before claiming a result. Related: #13198 introduced the separate chat lane. #12577 refreshes duration estimates; this change leaves that manifest alone. ## What Changed - Increase the general server matrix from five jobs to ten. - Verify the ten-way partition covers the complete server suite when combined with the chat lane. - Document runner demand and the unchanged local and PR grouping. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: 29 passed. - `actionlint .github/workflows/release-verify.yml`: passed. - Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed. - All latest-head GitHub CI checks passed, including the complete Linux test partition, build, typecheck, and browser gates. Greptile: 5/5 with zero open findings. - [Ten-shard timing probe](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34606772388): all 16 jobs passed; slowest server job 6m 23s versus 10m 38s in the earlier five-shard sample. This compares the server lane, not total readiness, and is not a controlled same-source A/B. - The full local `pnpm test:run` is also running. It has reproduced previously observed macOS-only failures in unchanged skill-cache and native-session suites; the corresponding Linux CI suites passed. Final local results will be attached separately. No affected-workflow test failed. ## Risks Five additional concurrent jobs per release verification run increase runner demand and repeated setup work. Queueing can offset the gain. Test workers, timeouts, permissions, and readiness requirements stay unchanged. Revert the matrix and its partition test to restore the previous split. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 / Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size are 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 the affected workflow tests locally and they pass; full-suite macOS limitations are disclosed 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-11 07:22:03 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	a20ecce409	feat: publish CODEOWNER-approved Storybook branch previews (#13226 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Maintainers use Storybook to review the board UI. > - Reviews need public previews of selected repository branches. > - Each branch needs its own URL so previews do not replace each other. > - This pull request adds manual, CODEOWNER-controlled publishing to S3 and CloudFront. > - The action returns stable branch links and permanent build links in its summary and a Markdown artifact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The existing Storybook build and manual visual-review workflow. Current behavior The repository has no manual branch-preview publisher. A single GitHub Pages site cannot support independent publishers without combining their output. Proposed behavior A CODEOWNER selects a source branch and approves publication. Each branch has a stable CloudFront URL. A completed build becomes the branch target only after its upload succeeds. The action attaches `storybook-deployment.md` with the preview links and source commit. Reason and benefit Maintainers can share multiple branch previews at the same time. Branch builds have no repository token permissions or AWS credentials. Dependency caching and install hooks are disabled. The publisher cannot write runner dashboard files or delete objects. Breaking changes None. Normal visual checks keep their existing behavior. This does not change application code or GitHub Pages settings. Additional context Searched public issues and PRs for Storybook deployment work. No duplicate deployment proposal was found. This is maintainer infrastructure, not a roadmap-level core feature. ## What Changed - Add `Storybook Deploy` with a source-branch input and a manual entry through `Storybook Visual`. - Check the original actor and rerunner against default-branch CODEOWNERS. Require a protected deployment environment with CODEOWNER reviewers. - Separate public-source builds with no repository permissions from an OIDC publisher restricted to the Storybook S3 prefix. - Publish distinct branch URLs and retain build URLs. Preserve Storybook deep links across the branch redirect. - Add the run summary, a downloadable Markdown deployment report, focused tests, and operator setup docs and IAM policies. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-deploy.test.mjs`: 19 tests pass. - `actionlint .github/workflows/storybook-deploy.yml .github/workflows/storybook-visual.yml`: passes. - [Feature branch live publication and deployment-only rerun](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34533202273): passed. - [Master branch live publication](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34533204743): passed. - Both public branch URLs render a component story without browser errors. A deployment-only rerun updates only the selected branch entry and preserves the previous build URL. - AWS policy simulation allows Storybook uploads and denies dashboard writes and object deletion. - Full local typechecking passes. Full local tests, build, and current-head PR checks are running. - [Revised build and Markdown artifact validation](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34605623088): passed. Downloaded the report and verified its branch URL, build URL, and source commit. - The public verifier also checks that the stable branch URL points to this build and rejects stale targets. ## Risks - Storybook previews are public. Maintainers must publish only public UI fixtures. - Retained builds accumulate until an operator prunes them. - Environment reviewers must stay synchronized with CODEOWNERS. The workflow fails closed if its environment loses required protection. - The existing CloudFront distribution is shared with runner reports. Separate S3 prefixes and a dedicated role prevent the publisher from overwriting those reports. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, shell tools, and browser verification. The exact runtime 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 - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-11 09:13:55 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	932c8bec56	fix(ci): bake the managed runtime identity into cloud images (#13210 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Managed deployments start from the image built by the Cloud workflow. > - The managed runtime requests user and group 1001. > - The image currently builds the node user as 1000. > - Startup must remap that user, which can walk a large mounted home directory. > - This pull request uses the existing Docker build arguments to bake user and group 1001 into Cloud images. > - Matching the runtime identity removes that startup work and helps avoid health-check retries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13208, #1923, and #7861. Searched open and closed PRs for the Cloud UID change. The older #7861 addresses build context and volume ownership repair. This change uses the existing identity arguments in the Cloud workflow and preserves ownership repair. What happened? A measured rollout had a container log `Updating node UID to 1001` after startup. The container stayed at this step for at least 2 minutes 55 seconds before rollback stopped it. The baked node identity was 1000, while the managed runtime requested 1001. A health check timed out and the target required a second deployment attempt. Expected behavior Cloud images should already have the managed runtime identity. A matching image should skip user and group remapping. Fresh or mismatched volumes must still receive ownership repair. Steps to reproduce 1. Build the current Cloud image with its default build arguments. 2. Start it with `USER_UID=1001`, `USER_GID=1001`, and a populated home volume. 3. Observe the startup user remap before the application starts. Paperclip version or commit `fc06f7f05f42c675be71ff0927b6334405d520ed` Deployment mode Docker on managed hosts. ## What Changed - Pass `USER_UID=1001` and `USER_GID=1001` to the Cloud image build. - Check the pushed digest's baked identity before the entrypoint can repair it. Then check the normal entrypoint's effective identity and writable home before publishing the verified full-SHA tag. - Add a workflow regression and two entrypoint cases for a matching Cloud identity, including a mismatched volume. - Document the runtime identity and the first-build cache cost. ## Verification - Focused workflow and artifact tests: 27 passed. - Entrypoint tests: 11 passed. Actionlint passed. Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. Full local `pnpm build` passed. The manual [Cloud image build](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34575473213) passed on the exact PR head. It checked Sentry, baked and effective identity, writable home, orphan reaping, and full-SHA publication. The new identity check took one second. All 30 PR checks passed; the Storybook workflow was intentionally skipped. Greptile reviewed commit `114d408f637a0b53e2e2b1339c263779b1e4ae54` at 5/5 with no findings or open threads. - The full local suite for the same application source was already run in #13205. Its macOS general-server phase had 10,471 passes and 70 failures in seven unchanged files. Those failures included missing Runner fixtures, filesystem errors, timeouts, a port conflict, and a load-count mismatch. After configuring Cargo and rebuilding fixtures, 37 of 38 native tests passed; one unchanged native-resume assertion still failed. Linux PR CI passed. This change adds entrypoint tests and does not change application code. ## Risks - The first build must rebuild layers that depend on the base image identity. Later builds can reuse them. - A future managed runtime identity change must update these build arguments and checks together. - The Dockerfile's self-hosted defaults remain 1000. Runtime overrides and mounted-volume ownership repair remain supported. - The observed startup delay supports this change, but fleet timing also includes provider startup, image pull, canary order, and retries. No fixed end-to-end gain is claimed before a live rollout. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and tool use. The exact serving 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 (focused workflow tests; full-suite limitations are listed 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-11 00:58:27 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	fc06f7f05f	fix(ci): isolate chaos verification by caller workflow (#13208 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud deployments require verified artifacts for the merged source commit. > - Cloud readiness and the npm release independently run the same source checks. > - Their shared chaos workflow used only the source ref as its concurrency key. > - One caller could cancel the other caller's required job for the same commit. > - This pull request scopes that key to the caller workflow and source ref. > - Both callers can finish their checks without blocking deployment readiness. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13192 and #13205. Searched for related open issues and PRs; no duplicate fix was found. What happened? The master push for `398d304e15739d1ee6105633bd8a0e42c929d33f` started Cloud readiness and Release together. GitHub cancelled the Cloud readiness chaos job before it acquired a runner. Its annotation reported a higher-priority waiting request for the same concurrency group. The required readiness gate cannot pass after that cancellation. Expected behavior Cloud readiness and Release must each finish source verification for the same SHA. Standalone chaos evals must also have a separate group. Steps to reproduce Merge a commit to master while the npm release queue is empty. Both callers reach the reusable chaos workflow with the same source SHA. See [the cancelled job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34569569760/job/103168603926). Paperclip version or commit `398d304e15739d1ee6105633bd8a0e42c929d33f`. Deployment mode GitHub Actions on master. ## What Changed - Add the caller workflow name to the chaos workflow concurrency group. Retain source isolation and cancellation of duplicate calls within the same workflow. - Add a regression test that evaluates the group for Cloud readiness, Release, and standalone evals at the same source SHA. - Document the concurrency boundary in the readiness runbook. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/preview-artifacts.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` passed: 26 tests. - The new regression test fails against the previous concurrency key and passes with this fix. - `actionlint -shellcheck= -pyflakes= .github/workflows/runner-chaos-evals.yml .github/workflows/release-verify.yml .github/workflows/cloud-readiness.yml` passed. - `git diff --check` passed. - The full local typecheck passed for the same application source in #13205. Its macOS general-server test phase had 10,471 passes and 70 failures in seven unchanged application test files: missing Cargo/Runner test binaries, filesystem permissions, timeouts, a port conflict, and a load-test count mismatch. Linux CI test checks passed. The full local build passed with Cargo on PATH. This PR changes workflow configuration, its test, and documentation only. - All CI checks pass on the final head, including typecheck, tests, browser suites, build, and canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings. After merge, verify both callers' chaos jobs complete for the same master SHA and record the resulting readiness time. ## Risks - Two callers may now run chaos tests at the same time. This uses two existing GitHub runners, which is the intended cost of independent verification. - Renaming a caller changes its concurrency group. The fixed prefix keeps this child group separate from caller-level concurrency groups. - The readiness gate continues to require every verification prerequisite. No gate is bypassed. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 / Codex, with reasoning, repository editing, and command/API tools. Exact serving model ID and context-window size are 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 (26 focused workflow/artifact tests) - [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 23:59:44 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	d56be3f3fc	fix(ci): verify deployable cloud artifacts independently (#13192 ) Verify source, build the cloud image, and wait for exact-source migrator packages concurrently. Emit Cloud deployable v1 only when every prerequisite succeeds for the merged full SHA. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-10 21:08:29 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	5cc51fad06	fix(release): publish exact-source cloud migrators on merge (#13188 ) Publish exact-source shared and database migrator packages for each master merge through the existing trusted Release workflow, independently of the full release and image build. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-10 21:07:38 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	5c660a32f3	ci: build cloud images independently for each merge (#13189 ) Build cloud images independently for each master commit through a reusable workflow. Preserve production release dependencies and image runtime checks, and write cloud registry caches per commit with bounded ancestor imports to prevent overlapping builds from replacing each other's cache. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-10 20:42:18 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	42961b6ef1	fix(ci): split release chat verification into test shards (#13198 ) Split release chat verification into three validated test-line shards and balance other server suites across five runners using the measured native Runner integration cost. Retire each chat case's fixtures after assertions, preserve complete test coverage, and exercise the real shard CLI in PR tests. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-10 20:30:30 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	399daa1f25	ci: publish verified full-SHA cloud image tags (#13187 ) Publish the full-source-SHA cloud image tag only after the pushed digest passes runtime, revision, and platform checks. This makes verified images directly resolvable by Cloud. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-10 20:10:02 -07:00
Devin Foley	c5c80e1feb	ci(release-verify): split server tests five ways like pr-trusted (#13185 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Every master push publishes a canary through release.yml, gated by release-verify.yml — the fleet's staging deploys and the nightly/beta/stable chain all start from those canaries > - release-verify splits the server test suite across three shards with a 20-minute job cap, while pr-trusted splits the same suite across five > - The server suite grew on 2026-09-10 and the three shards moved to 17-19 minutes; that evening every push-triggered canary run was cancelled by the 20-minute cap mid-verify, and no canary published after 18:50 UTC > - This pull request mirrors pr-trusted's five-way server split in release-verify, putting shards back at the 10-15 minute range with real headroom > - The benefit is a canary lane that reports test verdicts instead of dying on an infrastructure cap ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Push-triggered Release runs stopped publishing canaries on 2026-09-10. Runs at 19:34, 22:30, and 22:37 UTC were all cancelled by "The job has exceeded the maximum execution time of 20m0s" on a `verify_canary / General tests (server (N/3))` shard. No canary published after 18:50 UTC, which also starves the staging fleet's continuous deploys. Expected behavior release-verify's server shards finish well inside the 20-minute cap and runs conclude with a test verdict, as pr-trusted's five-way split of the same suite does (10-15 minutes per shard). Steps to reproduce 1. Compare server shard durations in the `verify_canary` job across 2026-09-10: 11-14 minutes in the morning, 17-19 minutes from 15:06 UTC, over 20 minutes by evening. 2. Observe runs 34521169020, 34537798488, and 34538332689 cancelled at the cap. Paperclip version or commit `master` at `d1ba17eec` (current tip; its canary run was one of the cancelled ones). ## What Changed - `release-verify.yml`: the `general-server` matrix goes from three shards to five, byte-for-byte the shape `pr-trusted.yml` already runs, with a comment recording why. ## Verification - The identical five-way split runs green on every pr-trusted run (10-15 minutes per shard today, including on PRs merged this evening). - The suite's own growth (slower chat-connector tests) is being addressed separately; this PR only removes the artificial cliff. ## Risks - Low risk: two more runners per verify run; no test content changes. If shard durations regress further, the cap fires again — which is the correct signal once shards have honest headroom. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5), extended thinking, tool use via Claude Code CLI. ## 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	2026-09-10 17:47:00 -07:00
Nicky LeachandClaude Sonnet 5	c1b55537ba	fix(paperclip-runner): bump claude-agent-acp pin to 0.73.0 (#13162 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Claude local adapter can run agent turns through an ACP (Agent Client Protocol) server, `claude-agent-acp`, instead of the plain CLI > - Two separate packages each pin their own copy of that dependency: `packages/adapters/claude-local` (the server-side adapter) and `packages/paperclip-runner` (which builds the provider pack baked into every managed sandbox image) > - `claude-local` moved to `^0.73.0` in #12730, but `paperclip-runner` was never bumped past `0.70.0` — nothing keeps the two in sync when only one changes > - That split means a sandbox image built from `paperclip-runner`'s provider pack ships a `claude-agent-acp` the server-side adapter was never actually compatible with > - This pull request bumps `paperclip-runner`'s pin to `0.73.0`, the only version that satisfies both packages' declared ranges at once, and fixes the matching hardcoded version assertion in `docker/daytona-runner/Dockerfile` > - The benefit is one consistent, compatible `claude-agent-acp` version across both the server host and every sandbox image built from this source, instead of a silent split that only surfaces as a runtime failure ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this specific split; opening directly per CONTRIBUTING.md path B, following the bug report template fields. What happened? `packages/paperclip-runner/package.json` pins `@agentclientprotocol/claude-agent-acp` at an exact `0.70.0`. `packages/adapters/claude-local/package.json` requires `^0.73.0` (added in #12730, 2026-09-02). Nobody re-synced `paperclip-runner`'s pin after that change — the two packages' dependency graphs are independent, so a bump in one doesn't propagate to the other. `paperclip-runner`'s copy is what the fleet sandbox image's provider pack actually ships, so every managed sandbox built from current source carries a `claude-agent-acp` version the server-side adapter's own declared compatibility range excludes. Expected behavior The two packages' `claude-agent-acp` pins should stay within a mutually compatible range, so a sandbox image built from this source always ships a version the server-side adapter actually supports. Steps to reproduce 1. Check `packages/adapters/claude-local/package.json`'s `@agentclientprotocol/claude-agent-acp` range (`^0.73.0`). 2. Check `packages/paperclip-runner/package.json`'s pin for the same package (`0.70.0` before this PR). 3. Note that `^0.73.0` on a `0.x` version only admits patch releases (`>=0.73.0 <0.74.0` per semver caret rules), so `0.70.0` falls outside it. Paperclip version or commit `master` as of this PR (paperclip-runner still at `0.70.0` prior to this change; claude-local's `^0.73.0` requirement landed in #12730). Deployment mode Any deployment that runs `claude_local` agents through the ACP engine against a sandbox image built from `packages/paperclip-runner`'s provider pack (managed cloud sandboxes in particular). Related PRs for context (not duplicates — none of these touch `paperclip-runner`'s pin): - #12730 — introduced the `^0.73.0` requirement in `claude-local` - #11873 — the last time `paperclip-runner`'s pin moved (`0.69.0` → `0.70.0`) - #13105 — separately made an unavailable ACP engine a hard failure instead of a silent CLI fallback, which is what turned this version split into a visible, run-blocking error rather than a quiet downgrade ## What Changed - Bump `@agentclientprotocol/claude-agent-acp` from `0.70.0` to `0.73.0` (exact pin, matching this package's existing pin style for its other agent-CLI dependencies) in `packages/paperclip-runner/package.json`. - Update the corresponding hardcoded version assertion (`test "$(claude-agent-acp --version)" = "0.70.0"`) in `docker/daytona-runner/Dockerfile` to `0.73.0`, so its own build-time check stays accurate instead of failing on the next build for an unrelated reason. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally not included — `pr-trusted.yml`'s `Validate dependency resolution and regenerate stale lockfile` step already regenerates it for the merge tree and hands it to downstream `--frozen-lockfile` jobs as an artifact, so a manual lockfile commit here would just be stale the moment CI runs. ## Verification - `0.73.0` is a real published version on npm (confirmed via `npm view @agentclientprotocol/claude-agent-acp versions`), and it's the only version satisfying claude-local's `^0.73.0` range, so this isn't a guess at compatibility — it's the unique intersection of both packages' declared ranges. - `grep -rn "0\.70\.0" docker/ packages/paperclip-runner/package.json` after this change shows no remaining stale references to the old pin. - I did not run a full local install/test pass against a hand-updated lockfile, since regenerating one locally would conflict with leaving `pnpm-lock.yaml` untouched per the note above; CI's own lockfile-regeneration step is the intended verification path for a manifest-only dependency bump like this one. - Downstream/full verification (does a sandbox image actually built with this pin work end-to-end) is tracked separately in `paperclip-cloud` — an unrelated internal-only repo, so not linked here — where a sibling fix restores the ACP servers to the runtime `PATH` in the fleet sandbox image itself; both fixes are needed together for a working sandbox, but this PR is scoped to the version pin alone. ## Risks - Low risk: single-line dependency version bump plus a matching test-assertion update, no code changes. `0.73.0` is a patch release within claude-local's own already-declared-safe range, so there's no reason to expect it changes behavior tenants depend on. - The main risk is unknown breaking changes between `claude-agent-acp` 0.70.0 and 0.73.0 that aren't caught by the version-string assertion alone (that check only confirms the binary reports the right version, not that its behavior is unchanged). I have not audited that package's own changelog between those versions. - `docker/daytona-runner/Dockerfile` is a parallel/reference image (per its own header comment, meant to stay aligned with the private `paperclip-cloud/fleet-sandbox-image/Dockerfile`, which is out of scope here) — this PR does not touch that other Dockerfile. ## Model Used Claude Sonnet 5 (`claude-sonnet-5`), via Claude Code, with tool use (file edits, shell/git, `gh` CLI, `npm view` for version verification). No extended-thinking mode. Standard Claude Code 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 — see Verification: a manifest-only bump with the lockfile intentionally left to CI's own regeneration step; no local test run applicable - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable — version-pin bump only, no new behavior to test - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — none applicable - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green — pending CI run on this PR - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups — pending review - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-09-10 11:35:33 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	889947c238	feat: add experimental native chat connectors (#13038 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People also ask agents for work in their existing chat tools. > - Each external conversation needs one task and a current authorized source. > - Retries, Stop, and provider failures must not duplicate work or expose private data. > - The first chat PR establishes the opt-in provider and data contracts. > - This PR adds experimental channel integration and its durable control plane. > - Users can request work from connected channels and inspect delivery in Paperclip. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13100 and #13092. This is the second of exactly two chat PRs. Foundation #13100 is merged and changed 143 files. Runner prerequisite #13092 is also merged. This PR changes 400 files against master, below the 500-file review limit. It contains no wireframe images or HTML galleries. ## What Changed - Add native Slack, GitHub, Microsoft Teams, Telegram, and Discord chat connections. Keep chat disabled unless the operator enables experimental chat connectors. Preserve the production GitHub tool connection and its normal setup path. - Bind each provider bot identity to one immutable Paperclip agent. Bind each admitted external conversation to one task. Paperclip owns tasks, runs, permissions, and audit records. - Add durable admission, per-conversation queues, questions, task controls, progress, final replies, images, files, and delivery receipts. Board comments remain internal unless explicitly sent to the channel. - Check current identity, provider reach, resource access, credentials, runtime generation, and exact source before provider effects. Keep private responses private. Never send raw reasoning, private logs, credentials, or tool arguments. - Hold uncertain sends for explicit audited resolution. Make Board Send-to-channel atomic and idempotent. Keep reconnect and setup credentials in Paperclip secret storage. - Preserve current native-runner authority across retries, lost acknowledgements, and recovery. Keep immutable input and completion contracts separate from newer user input. Receipt reconciliation cannot launch a provider. - Reconcile chat close/new ordering and provider-effect lock order. Audit resource access changes in the same transaction. Submit only the selected resource from each UI toggle so stale pages cannot undo unrelated access changes. - Drain Codex stdout before certifying process exit. Bound the drain with the existing shutdown grace. Preserve observed terminal authority without treating an undrained process as successful or reusable. - Incorporate master `018ca5da` with its ACP Stop, mobile task layout, runner packaging, and official lock changes. Preserve dedicated chat-answer continuations in both directions when ordinary queued comments are adopted after Stop. - Fence late adapter readiness behind an earlier Stop for the same run. Preserve verified cleanup for registered adapters. Handle single Stop, agent pause, duplicate Stops, and failure release without creating a false cancellation receipt. - Incorporate master's `6dd48cad4` wake-queue extraction. Preserve exact failed-chat retry authorization and lineage, retired question-source suppression, and the block on generic recovery that would discard the admitted source. Fresh deferred input retains its separate promotion path. - Incorporate master `2a05b5ed3` and its queue-admission extraction, simplified transaction ports, and separate runner CI job. Preserve exact durable receipts, actor separation, and dedicated-answer isolation through the new module. A failed receipt insert rolls back the accompanying deferred-wake merge. ## Verification Current head: `afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a`, incorporating master `2a05b5ed3457ea33efd6895520447d1d97fe98d8`. The conflicts are resolved. This successor fixes two test-harness boundaries exposed by CI: per-case route-module preparation and actual durable-save completion before intentional runner termination. Production code and all existing test/turn deadlines are unchanged. [Exact-head Greptile review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13038#issuecomment-5587250594) is 5/5, completed September 10 at 13:20:55 UTC, with no actionable findings or open review threads. [Fresh exact-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34481724341) passes all 24 jobs, including Build and both required aggregates. Normal exact-head guarded merge was attempted and rejected by the remaining branch approval policy: CODEOWNER review is required and no human approval is present. Normal squash auto-merge is enabled as of September 10 at 13:36:26 UTC. Requested CODEOWNERS have been notified; no approval bypass or self-approval was used. Earlier-head results below remain historical evidence, not qualification of this successor. - Final exact-head Linux evidence: 995/995 chat integration cases; 36/36 agent-skills routes; 35/35 runner live-session cases, including real process kill/resume; 1948 runner Vitest cases with three existing benchmark/platform guards; 870/870 API-authority cases; and 104 browser cases with four existing optional skips. Rust, conformance/replay, full repository build, typecheck, canary, all server/workspace shards, and both required aggregates pass with normal CI concurrency. Earlier failed attempts remain recorded below. - Latest test-only qualification: 141/141 route/permissions/authentication cases pass in separate cold forks, with plain server types and independent review clear. The real-runner suite passes 35/35, with plain runner types and independent review clear. A controlled premature-save acknowledgement fails as expected; matching ownership/effect/process evidence, rejected saves, real turn outcome, test abort, and pre-kill liveness are covered. No local reproduction of the original CI scheduling failure is claimed. The preceding [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34479680858) passes 21/24 jobs, including all 995 Linux chat cases and browser aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional skips); only Build, the skills serialized shard, and the required verification aggregate fail. Its exact-head Greptile review was 5/5. Both failed job logs are retained. - Final fixture qualification: all eight focused Discord cases and all 995 chat integration cases pass. The exact modal statement/PID is observed before taking the real connection lock; the test then proves its actual blocking relationship before mutation. Original SQL execution, provider behavior, negative assertions, and 1s/15s timeouts remain unchanged. Independent review is clear and test/production hashes remain frozen. The preceding [CI attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34477184777) passed 22 jobs, including Build/runner, typecheck, canary, all other test shards, and browser aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional skips); the two fixture failures and failed verification aggregate remain recorded, not relabeled as a pass. - Current queue-module composition: 308/308 recovery/batching/queue/Stop tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 89/89 module tests, including real PostgreSQL receipt-insert rollback; 24/24 workflow/module-boundary tests; plain server and UI types. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass in 1.4 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries, stable reviewed source hashes. The initial boundary failure is retained; its no-op service wrapper was removed without changing recovery context or weakening the check. An exploratory standalone test-directory typecheck fails because its new upstream transformation config is not a standalone typechecking project; standard CI/build does not invoke it, and no configuration was weakened to suppress those diagnostics. - The preceding head `e02a63d462ce5d47433b0aeb632bb6fd20aab1ba` passed [all 24 CI jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34436462958) and exact-head Greptile review at 5/5. Required CODEOWNER review prevented its normal merge before master advanced again. - Final extracted-module composition: 307/307 recovery, batching, queue and Stop-control tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 49/49 module tests including eight PostgreSQL adapter cases; and 19/19 issue-update tests. Plain server types pass. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass in 1.3 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries in these cohorts, frozen source hashes, and independent review clear. - The preceding head `3e4e1c1c` passes [all PR CI jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34415826820), including Build and required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`. Both the original Rust failure and the previously load-sensitive lineage fixture pass with unchanged Linux concurrency. Master advanced afterward and required this reconciliation. - Final master composition: 448/448 focused UI tests, 186/186 adapter tests, 24/24 queue/control tests, and 11/11 packaging tests. Plain UI, server, shared, and adapter types pass. Token gates and diff checks pass. Independent server and UI reviews are clear. - Stop-registration regression: both real-service cases fail against exact `a95` source and pass with the fix. The full corrected recovery/control suite passes 265/265. Duplicate-owner and failed-Stop controls also pass. Plain server types pass. The readiness barrier prevents provider startup without adding an acknowledgment to an already terminal run. - Final qualification strengthens terminal-field equality and repeats both affected cases successfully on a fresh database. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass again in 1.3 minutes, without skips or retries. The final screenshot shows Cancelled, a paused subtree, retained input, and no error toast. - Two new actual-service regressions fail before the merge fix. They prove that queued-comment adoption could consume a dedicated chat answer or add unrelated input to that answer. The fixed four-case cohort passes, including ordinary upstream continuation and adapter Stop controls. Full recovery passes 257/257. All four actual local process/ACP Stop browser flows pass in 1.4 minutes, without skips or retries, on a fresh database. - The unchanged runner artifact was qualified with 171/171 transport tests, 870/870 API-authority tests, conformance 1/1, and replay 11/11. Six controlled reader tests prove the exit/drain repair. Its local serial Rust workspace passed 546 top-level cases plus two invoked helpers; the later passing Linux CI supplies default-concurrency evidence. - Prior exact-source full chat integration passes 995/995. Settings regressions cover concurrent stale pages, 501 destinations, pending state, rejected updates, and explicit retry. These deterministic tests do not prove live provider behavior. - Retained failed attempts and their causes are in the [qualification log](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-chat-queue-and-webhook-repair.md). The first merge adapter run timed out while macOS slept for 290 seconds. Its unchanged repeat passed with a temporary sleep guard. No assertion, deadline, or CI gate was weakened. Review commands include `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts` and `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. Database suites require fresh disposable databases. See the [browser runbook](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-04-chat-adapters-browser-e2e-runbook.md) for provider setup and separate live acceptance steps. ## Risks - This remains experimental. Deterministic tests and bounded live evidence do not establish every provider feature, tenant, permission layout, or media shape. Teams work-tenant qualification is still open. - Failed and uncertain provider effects remain visible and can require operator action. A transport receipt does not prove recipient visibility. - Native controller and runner artifacts must remain compatible. Preserve lease ownership, terminal authority, source binding, and quarantine during future changes. - Access and audit rows commit together, but activity notifications remain best-effort. This is not a new durable event outbox. - The PR operation does not deploy a live server, replace its runner, or change provider permissions. Remaining live qualification is documented in the [temporary handoff](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-open-qualification-followups.md). ## Model Used OpenAI Codex assisted with implementation, tool execution, testing, and review. The work records `gpt-6-astra` assistance. The environment does not report a context-window size. No private reasoning traces are included. ## 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 10:06:45 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	2a05b5ed34	ci: split runner verification from build (#13142 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip uses GitHub Actions to verify changes before release. > - The Paperclip Runner has a separate verification boundary. > - The build job currently runs this verification before the workspace build. > - This pull request moves runner verification into its own parallel job. > - The benefit is clearer CI results and less wait time for independent work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The trusted PR and release verification workflows run Paperclip Runner verification inside the Build job. Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (GitHub Actions CI workflows). Current behavior The Build job runs `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` before it builds the workspace. A runner verification failure appears as a Build failure. The workspace build cannot run in parallel with runner verification. Proposed behavior Each workflow has a `Verify Paperclip Runner` job with the same checkout, dependency install, and command. The Build job only builds its required outputs. Both jobs run after the same gate and policy jobs. Reason and benefit The runner command is an independent verification boundary. A dedicated job gives it a clear status and allows it to run in parallel with Build. Breaking changes None. The same runner verification command still runs in both workflows. ## What Changed - Added a dedicated `Verify Paperclip Runner` job to the trusted PR workflow. - Added a dedicated `Verify Paperclip Runner` job to the release verification workflow. - Kept the Build jobs independent and retained their existing build commands. - Updated the trusted-workflow policy test for the additional dependency-install job. ## Verification - Ran `git diff --check`. - Ran `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`. - Ran `pnpm exec prettier --check .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/release-verify.yml`. - Confirmed both jobs retain their prior runner, dependency, and policy prerequisites. ## Risks Low risk. The runner verification job repeats the existing setup. It adds one parallel GitHub Actions runner to each affected workflow. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, 128k context window, reasoning and tool-use capabilities. ## 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 01:18:06 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	ae0c1fbbd5	refactor(server): move the admission half of the deferred wake state machine into the wake-queue module (#13136 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The heartbeat service admits wake requests while an issue has an active execution run. > - That admission branch mixes wake policy, database reads, and database writes in one service. > - This structure makes the wake-queue boundary hard to test and extend. > - This pull request moves the admission policy and its database adapter into the wake-queue module. > - The result keeps heartbeat orchestration small and makes the admission behavior testable in isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The heartbeat service now delegates deferred wake admission to the wake-queue module. The module keeps the existing merge, defer, and ordinary-wake outcomes. Subsystem affected server/ — REST API and orchestration services. Current behavior The heartbeat service contains a 146-line branch that reads wake state, chooses an outcome, and writes the result. Proposed behavior The wake-queue module owns the pure admission decision and the adapter reads and writes. The heartbeat service calls one module method. Reason and benefit This boundary reduces service coupling and lets module tests cover the admission policy. The change keeps the existing reason strings and outcomes. Breaking changes None. The change preserves the current behavior and public API. Additional context This pull request follows [PR #13132](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13132), which merged the first slice of this refactor. I searched GitHub for duplicate and related pull requests before opening this pull request. ## What Changed - Move deferred wake admission policy into `server/src/modules/wake-queue`. - Add module ports and a PostgreSQL adapter for the admission reads and writes. - Keep the existing wake outcomes and stored reason strings. - Extend the module boundary check to reject service imports from the application layer. - Add unit and adapter tests for the moved behavior. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/check-module-boundaries.test.mjs` passes. - The `server/src/modules/wake-queue` suite passes 58 tests. - The eight pinned heartbeat and queued-comment tests remain unchanged and require CI verification. - Every continuous-integration check must reach a terminal green state before merge. ## Risks The refactor changes the location of wake admission logic. A missed adapter condition could change deferred wake behavior. The tests cover the policy outcomes and the adapter writes. The residual tenant-scope risk remains documented in the review record. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code execution. The implementation author ran the tests and prepared the commit set. ## 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 00:55:48 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	018ca5daaf	fix: verify ACP Stop and preserve safe continuation (#13119 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task controls coordinate provider execution and queued user messages. > - Stop could finish before an embedded ACP provider stopped its tools. > - A later request could be held for reconciliation without a clear task response. > - A restored provider could also retain the stopped run's API credential. > - This pull request verifies provider termination and preserves safe session continuation. > - Operators can continue known-safe work and see why uncertain work cannot start. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Stop could leave an embedded ACP provider running. A queued follow-up followed by “go” could fail before it reached the provider. Task chat could show a generic missing-response message. Even a restored session could use the previous run's credential and fail its task update. Expected behavior Stop waits for confirmed provider termination. A later explicit wake continues the same compatible session only when recorded actions have known outcomes. It carries pending comments and the current run's environment. Uncertain actions retain a visible reconciliation hold. Composer Stop preserves the existing pause rule: conversation can continue while paused, but task work requires Resume. Steps to reproduce 1. Start an embedded ACP task. 2. Send a second request while the provider is running. 3. Interrupt the run, then send “go”. Also test composer Stop followed by Resume work. 4. Check that the request is delivered once and that the provider can complete the task through the current run's API credential. 5. Repeat with an unfinished write. Confirm that the write stops and that further execution stays blocked with a visible reason. Paperclip version or commit Built from source on master at `3bc60dd8b` plus this branch. Deployment mode Local source build with an isolated embedded PostgreSQL instance. Refs #11183. Refs #12552. Those changes address recovery after operator cancellation. This change also covers embedded ACP termination, session proof, pending-comment delivery, and task feedback. ## What Changed - Propagate Stop into embedded ACP and wait for bounded adapter cleanup and provider exit. Retain the actual ChildProcess object for forced termination on all platforms; never signal a recycled numeric PID. - Preserve interrupted checkpoints only for acknowledged, local, persistent sessions with settled reads or no tools. Keep writes, incomplete actions, and forced termination blocked. - Restore the same compatible provider session with the current run's environment. Reject fresh-session fallback for an interrupted checkpoint. - Adopt pending comments on the next explicit wake. Stop alone does not dispatch them. - Share the execution-blocker rule across dispatch, Resume, and task detail. Show Stopped or Couldn't start with the recorded reason. Resolve the stopped agent for the run link, including reviewer runs. - Keep execution reconciliation holds intact when generic recovery sees queued comments or healthy child tasks. - Add process, service, component, and browser regression coverage. Fix disposable database cleanup and React test settling exposed by the full suite. ## Verification - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm check:token-gates`. - Passed all three `acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts` browser journeys. They use an actual ACP child process and require task completion through the agent API. - Passed 165 adapter execution, operator-stop, and child-process control tests, 17 queued-comment route tests, and 65 tests in the two adjusted UI suites. Earlier focused recovery, heartbeat, and task-control tests also passed. - Manually used the browser to queue a request, Stop, send “go” while paused, and Resume. The same session answered once and moved the task to Done with the current run's credential. - Manually interrupted an unfinished write. Its file size stayed fixed for five seconds. “Go” showed the reconciliation reason and did not start another provider prompt. - Separate live Claude ACP smoke checks confirmed that Stop ended a disposable local write and that a no-tool interruption could resume the exact provider session. The browser fixture does not call Drive or another external app. - Passed all 5,615 UI tests and 3,090 other workspace tests. The CLI and general server groups pass with targeted retries: two transient server failures passed together on retry, and two embedded-database startup failures passed after removing abandoned shared-memory segments from this task's completed browser fixtures. All 144 serialized server suites completed, with 2,189 tests passing after two transient HTTP socket failures passed on retry. - Passed all 135 heartbeat process/recovery tests, including a deterministic regression that failed before the recovery-sweep fix. - Passed 18 dispatch integration tests, including stopped-reviewer links, company boundaries, and malformed run IDs. - Greptile is 5/5 on `7dd170d83`, with zero unresolved review threads. The security scan and all required CI gates pass for the same commit. ## Risks - Safe continuation depends on complete tool reporting and a restorable local provider session. Unknown outcomes remain blocked and require reconciliation. - Provider cleanup can take time. A timeout does not grant replay permission. - The change adds optional adapter context fields and an optional issue projection. It does not change the database schema or require a migration. - Test cleanup truncates company data only in a disposable test database. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running as Codex with repository tools, code execution, and browser interaction. The runtime does not expose a more specific model deployment 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>	2026-09-09 22:06:06 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	6abeb67334	feat: add opt-in chat provider and data foundation (#13100 ) Add dormant provider contracts, qualified patched adapters, tenant-scoped persistence and lifecycle ownership without activating chat routes. Preserve the experimental integration as dependent PR #13038. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-09 13:49:12 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2991a59b17	fix(adapters): prevent engine fallback and preserve usable runtime defaults (#13105 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents that must write work and report task outcomes through its API. > - Local adapters select an execution engine and its permission settings. > - A higher ACP Node requirement can make an unchanged installation lose access to its default engine. > - The adapter then silently selects CLI, which can change permissions and block API access. > - This pull request keeps the engine choice fixed and reports missing prerequisites before work starts. > - It also gives explicit Codex CLI runs usable defaults and keeps managed services on a supported Node runtime. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12215. Related changes: #11792 raised the Node requirement; #13094 addressed separate runner networking behavior. This change fixes the engine-selection and managed-launcher paths. What happened? An unchanged agent could switch from ACP to CLI after an upgrade. Codex CLI then used read-only permissions with networking disabled. The run could finish without updating its task. Repeated recovery attempts used the same unavailable setup. Managed updates also skipped the Node check and did not refresh old launchers. Expected behavior An unavailable engine must fail with a clear setup error. It must not silently select another engine. Explicit CLI runs must be able to write workspace files and call the API unless the operator configures stricter settings. Managed updates must validate Node and keep child tools on that runtime. Steps to reproduce 1. Run an ACP-default agent under Node 22 after the ACP minimum rises to 24.11. 2. Leave the engine unset and disable the approval/sandbox bypass. 3. Observe the old adapter select CLI and fail to write task disposition through the API. 4. Start a managed service with an old launcher and a supervisor PATH that selects a different Node for child tools. ## What Changed - Remove automatic engine fallback for Codex, Claude, Gemini, and Kimi. Check prerequisites for default and explicit ACP selections. - Return a configuration error with proof that provider work did not start. Stop automatic continuation retries for this error. - Enable Codex ACP workspace networking at the actual turn boundary. Upstream mode presets otherwise force it off even when config.toml enables it. Preserve explicit network denial and read-only mode. - Set workspace-write and network access defaults for explicit Codex CLI runs. Preserve explicit sandbox modes, profiles, and network restrictions. - Pin the validated Node directory in managed launcher PATH. Refresh legacy launchers during installs and npm/Git updates. - Reject updates on unsupported Node. Keep update checks, dry runs, and rollback available. - Synchronize the qualified Codex ACP executable identity across server, TypeScript runner, Rust runner, and provider-pack launch paths. - Add regression tests and update engine and installation documentation. ## Verification - [Full CI passed on the final head](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34387099695): typecheck, build/native runner verification, all general and serialized test shards, all browser shards, release registry, canary dry run, and policy checks. - Greptile: 5/5 on `2c1d6e2815830a5cd39e36c8a082cc0c4441b6c0`, with no unresolved review findings. Security gates are green. - Full workspace typecheck and build also passed locally. The final deployed Linux build passed. - Full Codex, Claude, Gemini, and Kimi source test suites: 804 passed, 2 skipped. Installer, updater, and launcher tests: 47 passed. Installed ACP turn-boundary tests: 3 passed. ACP packaging tests: 14 passed. Focused recovery classification tests also passed. - Real Linux Codex CLI runs, both fresh and resumed, wrote a workspace file and reached the control-plane health API with the new defaults. - Explicit read-only and network-disabled control probes retained those restrictions. - A real ACP run on the final deployed Linux build wrote a file and reached the control-plane API with HTTP 200, without engine fallback. The same probe failed DNS before the turn-policy patch. - Executable-identity and installed-policy contracts: 12 passed. Affected native server tests: 197 passed. Runner factory tests: 21 passed. Rust qualification and native provider integration tests: 11 passed. - Deployed the production changes to a Linux service on Node 24.20 after a verified database backup. Health, bootstrap readiness, static UI, executable/cwd identity, and guarded restart checks passed. The restart lost no runs. - Corrected stale Kimi skill-default and Gemini remote-archive fixtures; both suites pass. ## Risks - Default or legacy auto engine settings now fail when ACP is unavailable. Operators who intend to use CLI must select it explicitly. - Codex CLI now permits workspace writes and networking by default, and ACP workspace-write turns permit networking by default. Explicit operator sandbox settings remain authoritative. - Old managed launchers keep their pinned Node until they are reinstalled under a supported runtime. An old updater cannot repair itself; the documentation gives the current installer command. - Custom service wrappers and global/source installations must configure their runtime PATH. No database migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, shell execution, and test tools. The exact serving model identifier 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>	2026-09-09 13:27:24 -05:00

1 2 3 4 5 ...