mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-30 13:20:54 +01:00
7d8d1fbc1dfd342f6ee9bf2c31eeeca57ceb43ca
8
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
9786f6df56 |
fix(runner): preserve credential content in document saves (#14937)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Runner sends authorized tool calls to the control plane. > - Agents use these calls to save plans and instruction files. > - The Runner used diagnostic secret detection to reject execution arguments. > - Ordinary credential-related prose could reject a document save before persistence. > - This pull request forwards the original arguments and leaves credential policy to the provider harness. > - The benefit is reliable saves with useful diagnostic records. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related foundation: Refs #12415 and #14430. No duplicate save-policy fix was found. **What happened?** A `write_document` call failed before the server saved its plan. The Runner reported `semantic tool input contains credential material; refusing to execute altered arguments`. The detector also masked ordinary phrases such as `secret manager` and `credential handling` in diagnostics. Both TypeScript dispatchers had equivalent execution gates. One dispatcher also rewrote structured approval and question payloads before execution. **Expected behavior** Paperclip forwards authorized arguments unchanged. The provider harness decides credential-content policy. Log and audit redaction does not reject or rewrite save input. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Send an authorized `write_document` call with a plan that discusses credential handling. 2. Include an intentional credential value in the body to exercise harness-owned policy. 3. The old Runner rejects the call. With this change, the document service stores the exact body. 4. Diagnostic records still mask explicit credential values. Qualified credential fields, short bearer values, opaque diagnostic pairs, and valid encoded JSON token headers have regression coverage. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced at `c46e41e81c03cd3c8b64cf993615b604d7fe8c62`. The branch is based on current `master`. **Deployment mode** Server deployment with the native Paperclip Runner. Local regression tests use the real document service and an embedded test database. ## What Changed - Remove credential-content vetoes from Rust admission and both TypeScript semantic dispatchers. - Preserve original structured approval and question arguments during execution. - Keep transport bounds, schema checks, authorization, idempotency, and audit masking. - Require explicit credential syntax or recognized formats for diagnostic masking. Preserve ordinary prose, metadata, and dotted identifiers. - Test exact document persistence, replay, nested argument identities, and masked audit copies. - Remove obsolete retry guidance and document harness-owned credential policy. ## Verification - `cargo test --manifest-path packages/paperclip-runner/runner/Cargo.toml --locked -p paperclip-runner-core --lib --test acpx_event_payload --test acpx_provider_state --test acpx_provider_turns`: 355 tests passed. - Focused server and adapter tests: 189 tests passed after rebase. These include the real document save and the complete tool-gateway suite. - Semantic dispatcher and conformance tests: 34 tests passed. - Diagnostic redaction and MCP tests: 46 tests passed, including all six review examples. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the repaired branch. - The broad local root suite was interrupted after database fixture setup failures. The focused database suites passed. CI runs the complete configured test lanes. ## Risks - Authorized tool arguments can intentionally contain credentials. The harness must enforce its content policy. - Diagnostic detection is narrower. Explicit assignments, credential fields, and recognized credential formats remain masked. - The change does not add a database migration or change company authorization. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The session exposes the GPT-6 model family; its exact runtime model identifier and context window size are not exposed. Used reasoning, 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 - [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> |
||
|
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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
0f94521017 |
fix(runner): restore local session and task integrity (#12721)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for agents that perform work. > - Paperclip Runner connects durable provider sessions to individual task runs through PRP. > - Provider continuity and per-run authority are different lifetimes. > - The existing implementation mixed those lifetimes and lost event metadata between provider frames, runnerd, persistence, API sanitization, and the task thread. > - That caused failed continuation, missing progress and Plans, duplicate replies, hidden failures, and unsafe recovery. > - This repair gives every heartbeat fresh authority, preserves qualified provider-session continuity, and restores one lossless presentation path without changing direct adapters. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A second native heartbeat could reuse tickets, leases, command receipts, sequence state, and run identity from the first heartbeat. Provider phase and item identity could be lost before the UI read them. Redaction could corrupt protocol discriminators while still missing malformed credential tails. The task thread could fold progress into the final response, hide failures, or show more than one final answer. Native Codex also exposed approval modes that do not yet have a durable approval bridge. **Expected behavior** Each heartbeat uses a new PRP authority epoch. Codex and OpenCode preserve exact qualified provider sessions; ACPX emits an explicit continuity event when its qualified process-replacement policy is used. Every accepted provider event is presented, classified as internal, or surfaced as unsupported. The task page shows chronological progress, reasoning summaries, activity, Plans, interactions, terminal failures, and exactly one final reply. Direct adapters retain their existing path. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable the unified experimental Paperclip Runner setting. 2. Create a local native Codex, OpenCode, ACPX Claude, or ACPX Codex agent. 3. Run response, Plan, structured-question/resume, restart, cancellation, and failure scenarios. 4. Reload the task while active, waiting, failed, and settled. 5. On the old implementation, observe stale run authority, missing classifications, incomplete output, or duplicated/folded replies. **Paperclip version or commit** The repair is based directly on `master` at `87d05e194b643810d16d20612115acd01d735d43`. **Deployment mode** Local development with the embedded database. Related work: Refs #12616, #12646, #12666, #12685, and #12700. ## What Changed - Rotates PRP control-plane, outbox, ticket, lease, command, receipt, and sequence authority for each heartbeat while carrying forward only a validated provider-session identity. - Reads `control-plane-state.json`, validates both durable schemas and lifecycle values, resumes coherent current runs, archives qualified settled authority, and quarantines malformed or mismatched scoped state without moving ambiguous live legacy state. - Preserves Codex provider phase and stable item identities so commentary remains progress and only `final_answer` becomes final. - Adds raw OpenCode HTTP/SSE boundary coverage and canonical reasoning lifecycle mapping. - Makes ACPX normalization lossless for visible reasoning, tool lifecycle metadata, stable bounded identities, Plan revisions, structured requests, failures, and qualified process replacement. Only the compatible terminal assistant message is promoted as final. - Applies schema-aware redaction before generic JWT-shaped detection and scans every diagnostic string leaf. Malformed raw/escaped quoted credential tails are redacted in both server and durable Rust state. - Restores snapshot-style chronological task presentation, expandable tool activity, inline Plan cards, visible waiting/resume/cancel/failure states, and exactly one final answer. - Makes `never` the only qualified native Codex permission mode and rejects unsupported persisted native modes with remediation. OpenCode and ACPX policies remain intact. - Keeps the unified experimental Runner setting as the only enablement flag. Onboarding and direct Codex, Claude, and OpenCode stay on their legacy execution/finalization paths. - Adds cross-language goldens, authority/recovery/fault coverage, exact response/count assertions, and native plus legacy acceptance scenarios. ## Verification - Pull-request GitHub Actions run Rust formatting/tests, TypeScript checks, server/UI tests, builds, protocol drift checks, browser E2E, and security scans. - A separate workflow-only validation ref is pinned directly on this PR head and runs the 35-cell paid local matrix: three core scenarios plus structured-question resume and restart/resume for native Codex, native OpenCode, ACPX Claude, ACPX Codex, and direct Codex/Claude/OpenCode. Run: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/33682434315 - Acceptance requires exact single visible replies, monotonic sequences, matching envelope discriminators, one semantic terminal, one run terminal, no unresolved interaction, no duplicate mutation, no secret leakage, provider continuity, and zero native rows for direct adapters. - Per maintainer direction, tests are running in GitHub Actions rather than on the slower local host. Only formatters and static diff checks were run locally. ## Risks - Recovery from old or partial filesystem state is sensitive. The repair fails closed, preserves active or unverifiable authority, and quarantines only state whose scoped ownership is safe to move. - Provider event formats can change. Closed validators and boundary goldens turn new or malformed events into visible diagnostics instead of silent drops. - Shared task presentation could affect direct adapters. Runtime-fact gating plus the direct-adapter matrix protect the existing path. - Managed and remote providers are not qualified here. Shared code continues to compile and fail safely, but live qualification is deferred. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5. The exact deployed snapshot and context-window size are not exposed to this task. It used agentic reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, Git, parallel subagents, and GitHub Actions. ## 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 and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass (intentionally deferred to GitHub Actions) - [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 - [ ] The paid local-provider matrix is green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
560e7e48b5 |
feat(runner): add SDK and developer tooling (#12608)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner package already provides the production protocol and execution spine. > - Contributors still need stable SDK surfaces, deterministic test tools, and local inspection tools. > - Those surfaces share generated contracts and must change as one package boundary. > - This pull request adds the package-local SDK, labs, examples, and drift checks. > - The benefit is a reviewable developer platform that does not change application execution selection. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** `packages/paperclip-runner` — runner SDK, conformance tools, and developer tooling. **Problem or motivation** The production runner spine is present, but package consumers cannot build deterministic integrations, inspect sessions, or verify provider-neutral behavior through supported surfaces. **Proposed solution** Add browser, React, standalone, live-session, scenario, conformance, and evaluation surfaces. Add generated contract inventories and package-local verification scripts. Keep production application routing unchanged. **Alternatives considered** We considered splitting each generated catalog, SDK surface, and demo into separate pull requests. Those changes share exports, fixtures, and drift gates. Splitting them would create intermediate package states that do not build. **Roadmap alignment** No overlapping item appears in `ROADMAP.md`. This work extends the runner package that is already on `master`. ## What Changed - Add browser, React, standalone, live-session, and issue-thread SDK surfaces. - Add deterministic mock control-plane, scenario, conformance, replay, and evaluation tools. - Add bounded Codex, OpenCode, and ACPX development transports and fixtures. - Keep deferred managed-provider execution fail-closed. Persisted compatibility data remains readable. - Add generated capability inventories with their source files and drift checks. - Add examples, package documentation, browser checks, and clean-consumer checks. - Preserve the reviewed protocol bounds, replay compatibility aliases, process environment isolation, and semantic redaction limits. - Update the ACPX package patch that the existing workspace patch registry already tracks. - Do not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`, repository workflows, server runtime selection, or the application UI. ## Verification GitHub Actions is the verification authority for this pull request. The repository CI, package TypeScript and Rust checks, package tests, generated-output drift checks, browser checks, security scans, and Greptile review must pass on the exact head. Local test suites were not run because this series uses parallel GitHub Actions for verification. ## Risks This is a large greenfield package change. The main risks are public export drift, generated-output drift, and optional React consumer compatibility. Package boundary checks, clean-consumer checks, and browser tests cover those risks. Production adapter selection and server execution are outside this pull request. ## Stack 1. **This PR:** runner SDK and developer tooling. 2. [Codex production server integration](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12616). 3. [Provider-neutral task-thread UI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12617). ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, high-reasoning mode, 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 described the issue in-PR following the feature request template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [ ] 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 - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandDev Agent
|
25cf079ec5 |
feat(runner): add Codex-native application integration (#12591)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner package is useful only when the application can start, observe, and recover a native Codex run safely. > - Existing direct adapters must keep their current execution and finalization paths. > - The application boundary therefore needs additive persistence, authorization, coordination, and recovery behind an explicit experimental adapter. > - This pull request adds that Codex-only boundary without activating generalized providers, remote environments, or the later task/SDK surfaces. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Shared contracts, database persistence, adapter utilities, server native-runtime services, and the experimental Paperclip Runner adapter. **Problem or motivation** The already-landed runner package has a qualified Codex path, but the application needs durable native-run state, guarded runtime selection, authenticated coordination, tool security, finalization, and recovery before the experimental adapter can be exercised safely. **Proposed solution** Add a Codex-only `paperclip_runner` application path behind the existing default-off native-runner setting. Bind native state and coordination to company/run identity, preserve persisted-run recovery, and leave every direct adapter on its existing legacy execution path. **Alternatives considered** The earlier stack boundary introduced a generalized executor and remote-environment lifecycle here. That made this PR depend on implementations in higher PRs and changed reusable sandbox behavior globally. Those pieces are now deferred together to #12592. **Roadmap alignment** ROADMAP.md does not list a conflicting native-runner integration project. This change adds the application boundary for the existing Runner architecture. ## What Changed - Added native run/result/finalization/provider-trace persistence, shared validators, and idempotent migration/replay coverage. - Added guarded Codex-only runtime selection, authenticated PRP coordination, recovery, finalization, and interaction services. - Added run/company-bound tool-gateway authorization, credential redaction, SSRF protections, and replay-safe behavior. - Added the explicit `paperclip_runner` adapter behind the default-off rollout setting. - Preserved legacy answered-question wake projection and direct-adapter execution/finalization paths. - Hardened cancellation so only owned in-memory child processes are signaled; persisted recycled PIDs/process groups are never trusted. - Retained the narrow Claude ACPX isolated-context security follow-up discovered after #12590. - Deferred the generalized executor, provider ingress, remote lifecycle, SDK/lab/eval work, release-process changes, and lockfile. ## Verification - Changed-file delta against `master`: 133 files. - GitHub Actions is the authoritative verification environment for this PR. - Full CI, security, and Greptile review will run on this lowest unmerged stack PR. - Local tests/build/typecheck were not run because this checkout is resource constrained. - Static diff/reference checks pass, and `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged. ## Risks - This touches central heartbeat and agent-route code, so legacy compatibility is the primary risk. - Runtime selection remains Codex-only and explicit; direct Codex, Claude, OpenCode, process, HTTP, and plugin adapters remain on their existing paths. - Fresh native starts fail closed while the rollout flag is off; persisted native records remain readable and recoverable. - Cancellation, company/run binding, tool calls, status decisions, and completion writes are guarded or replay-safe. > For core feature work, check [ROADMAP.md](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in #dev before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with repository tools, code execution, and parallel agent review. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — GitHub Actions is authoritative for this resource-constrained checkout - [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 and security gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open actionable findings - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge ## Stack - Position: 3 of 5 overall; lowest of 3 currently unmerged - Base: `master` - Previous: [#12590](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12590), qualified Claude ACPX runtime — merged - Next: [#12592](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12592), generalized Codex executor, task experience, and developer SDKs --------- Co-authored-by: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
773d357d8a |
Add deterministic runner conformance core (#12354)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The runner needs repeatable tests at the provider and control-plane boundaries > - Network services and live providers cannot produce deterministic conformance results > - Small in-memory adapters can exercise the same public contracts without production side effects > - This pull request adds a deterministic harness driver, control-plane adapter, and fixture runner > - It exposes these helpers only from the testing entry point > - The benefit is stable cross-boundary verification for later runtime changes ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** packages/paperclip-runner testing and conformance support **Problem or motivation** The public runner contracts have unit tests, but later provider and server slices need a deterministic way to exercise session, event, replay, checkpoint, and result behavior together. **Proposed solution** Add in-memory implementations of the harness-driver and control-plane ports. Add a canonical conformance fixture and runner. Export these utilities only from `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner/testing`. **Alternatives considered** The tests could start a real provider or server. That would make the conformance gate slower, less portable, and dependent on credentials or network state. **Roadmap alignment** This supports the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It does not enable a production adapter or change current app execution. ## What Changed - Add a deterministic harness-driver implementation. - Add an in-memory control-plane adapter with replay and checkpoint support. - Add a canonical provider-neutral conformance fixture. - Add a reusable conformance runner and contract tests. - Export the helpers from the package testing entry point only. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - The branch changes 10 files relative to its declared base. ## Risks Low risk. This pull request adds test-only adapters and conformance helpers. It does not select a runtime or change production behavior. Contract tests verify event identity, replay, checkpoints, and deterministic results. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, 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 linked an existing public issue or described the issue in-PR - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
d18e281c33 |
Add the native runner session runtime (#12352)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Paperclip Runner package needs one provider-neutral session loop > - Native execution contracts now define the accepted input and output > - Backends still need bounded execution, recovery, and control-plane ports > - This pull request adds that package-local session runtime > - It does not change server runtime selection or start the experimental runner > - The benefit is a tested execution core for later provider and server layers ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** packages/paperclip-runner **Problem or motivation** The runner contracts do not yet have a shared session loop. Each backend would otherwise duplicate event handoff, terminal handling, recovery cursors, timeouts, and checkpoint behavior. **Proposed solution** Add the native session runtime, backend interfaces, control-plane port, harness driver contract, deterministic conformance helpers, and bounded tests. **Alternatives considered** The server could own this loop. That would mix provider process behavior with server persistence and authority logic. **Roadmap alignment** This is part of the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It does not enable a production adapter. ## What Changed - Add a provider-neutral native session execution loop. - Add recovery cursor reconciliation and checkpoint hooks. - Add bounded timeout and governed-wait behavior. - Add harness driver and control-plane conformance helpers. - Add deterministic backend and session runtime tests. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - Protocol generation and manifest checks pass. - The branch changes 14 files relative to its declared base. ## Risks The main risk is a session that hangs, duplicates an event, or restores the wrong cursor after reconnect. Tests cover terminal events, timeouts, durable handoff, duplicate receipts, recovery, continuity breaks, and checkpoint updates. The change remains package-local. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, 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 and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [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 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ffff1fe6e3 |
feat(runner): define package API and verification boundary (#12129)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner package now has protocol, transport, provider, catalog, and authorization foundations. > - Its first upstream package boundary should expose only the implemented runtime and test-helper surfaces. > - Rust correctness belongs in the repository existing build verification, without introducing a parallel release process. > - Direct package creation must build the files declared by the package manifest. > - This pull request defines the minimal package API and verifies the optimized runner binaries in the existing PR and release Build jobs. > - The benefit is a production-ready runner package boundary with minimal build-process change. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11962 This pull request replaces one bounded part of the archived large runner change. It follows the package-local authorization change in #12126. ## What Changed - Export only `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner` and `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner/testing`. - Keep Node-only fixture loading and semantic conformance helpers out of the runtime root. - Add a provider-neutral semantic conformance kit with stable JSON comparison and fail-closed input checks. - Keep deferred SDK, eval, browser, React, lab, and command surfaces private. - Pin the runner Rust toolchain to 1.97.1 with the minimal profile and `rustfmt`. - Run the Rust workspace tests in release mode. - Launch the optimized `paperclip-runnerd` and fake-harness binaries in process-level integration coverage. - Add one `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` step to each existing PR and release Build job. - Make the existing server `prepack` lifecycle run its existing build after it prepares UI assets. - Document that no production adapter starts runnerd yet. This revision adds no standalone GitHub Actions job. It adds no server runner dependency or runner vendoring. It adds no Docker bootstrap or clean-consumer harness. It does not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` - 66 TypeScript tests - 8 protocol contract tests - 56 Rust unit and integration tests - Release-mode integration coverage launches the optimized runnerd and fake-harness binaries. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/server-package-build-script.test.ts` (2 tests) - Clean `pnpm pack` from `server/` rebuilt the server and produced both `package/dist/index.js` and `package/dist/index.d.ts`. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` (8 tests) - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `git diff --check` - No `pnpm-lock.yaml` diff. - The diff changes 12 files. ## Risks The runner adds Rust work to the existing Build jobs. These jobs can take longer on a cold cache. The pinned toolchain makes contributor and CI behavior reproducible. Cargo tests use `--release` to verify optimized executables. The server prepack lifecycle now performs the build that its published entry points require. This can make direct server packing slower. This pull request does not wire runnerd into the server. It does not select runnerd for any adapter. Existing application execution and finalization paths remain unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. Agentic coding mode used repository tools, code execution, and automated tests. ## 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> |