3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	f1a394bd30	feat(runner): add Grok Build through native ACP (#13882) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and governs their work. > - Its native runner uses structured provider protocols for sessions and tools. > - Grok Build supports ACP over stdio, but the runner did not expose it. > - Native execution requires company-scoped credentials, verified identities, and permission gates. > - This change adds Grok through ACPX for local and Daytona execution. > - Subscription login and explicit API-key execution have separate credential paths. > - Qualification grades real tool outcomes, durable state, and browser workflows. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13845, #13847, #13850, #13878, #13901, #13973, #13977, #13979. Add **Grok Build** to `paperclip_runner` with `provider: "acpx"`, `acpxAgent: "grok"`, and model `grok-4.7`. Existing legacy Grok agents keep their adapter. Merge the three companion fixes (#13973, #13977, #13979) before treating the integrated Product qualification as deployed behavior. ## What Changed - Synchronize shared, TypeScript, Rust, server, validation, and UI provider contracts. - Run Grok native ACP stdio through ACPX and the authenticated Paperclip MCP bridge. Verify the pinned executable and exact ACP model identity. - Prefer company subscription login. Support an explicit company-secret API key without automatic paid fallback. Fence refresh and copyback to the same account and remove private runtime credentials after containment. - Preserve selected permissions, cancellation, durable session identity, resume, and restart recovery. Keep unsupported steering and goals unavailable. Preserve missing usage and cost as unknown. - Package checksum-verified Grok Build 1.0.13 for Daytona with an immutable, signed image built on EC2. - Add deterministic admission, protocol, permissions, identity, credential, failure, and cleanup checks. Add the maintained 39-case protocol roster and separate subscription/API Product profiles. - Fix live-test findings in reasoning events, reloads, idle-owner retirement, credential-home cleanup, expired-login model discovery, launcher pinning, and rerun evidence selection. - Align control-plane state readers with the transport's 64 MiB bound while retaining identity, ownership, lifecycle, and size rejection checks. - Stabilize two asynchronous CI assertions while retaining actual outcome and filesystem-evidence checks. ## Verification Current integration head `f114948376056fe0b6b34c1496ae8667b59daa63` includes master `3447609d2247e75e55d91493dda91a608364f672` (2026-09-28). Two master advances during verification overlapped the eval catalog; the final merge preserves Grok qualification, completion updates, and bounded API-response reading in all 348 cells. All 77 focused catalog/eval/workflow tests pass. Both native stack layers (#14397) are mergeable, and both exact-head Greptile reviews are 5/5 with successful security scans and no unresolved review threads. All current-head CI is green: 56 successful checks/statuses and four intentional skips ([CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36447097232)). Trunk code-owner requirements remain enforced. The review summary’s non-blocking saved-asset offset classification note concerns code already merged in #14301; those runtime files are identical to master and outside this stack’s diff. Historical live evidence below retains its original source revisions. Earlier integration checkpoint: `24fc9b94ca0afb21ccdc8d26dbb2e4b258ad72cb`. Refreshed against master `0f14d2612`, preserving Grok qualification alongside the new accounting and lifecycle suites. All 124 focused catalog, evidence, and service-worker checks pass. The current base workflow includes the explicitly selected public-install verification lane; follow-up #14024 supplies its verifier script. CI at that earlier checkpoint was green (56 successful checks/statuses, four intentional skips), and the review is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Prior feature CI at `fd73f0a9b1ecdf4094685054028df71739ddc3e1` passed ([run 36148259902](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36148259902)); that is historical evidence, not a current-head result. Paid Product measurements use frozen integrated source `2d939a92b21dcaf5c77c88b54d96784d2ddd0699`, which combines the feature with #13973, #13977, and #13979. That source passed all 52 CI checks and clean 5/5 review. Later master syncs incorporate upstream changes. Their checks remain separate from these pinned live measurements. | Check | Result and source-pinned report | | --- | --- | | Subscription protocol roster | [39/39 first attempts; 206 assertions](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-protocol-evals/campaigns/gha-36046839612-1/index.html), runtime `bc6833f7`, evals `92bb4b8c` | | API protocol roster | [39/39 first attempts; 206 assertions](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-protocol-evals/campaigns/gha-35926577007-1/index.html), runtime `4a1061c8`, evals `3213dbec` | | Subscription full Product matrix | [16/16 first attempts; 144 assertions; cleanup passed](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36096908572-1/index.html), source `2d939a92` | | Subscription core repetitions | 18/18: tool use, planning approval, and Stop/resume each passed three times in local and Daytona profiles. The full matrix contains repetition one; [repeat two](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36104551060-1/index.html) and [repeat three](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36108100404-1/index.html) each passed 6/6. Total: 28 unique subscription attempts at `2d939a92`. | | API smoke and question continuation | [4/4 first attempts; cleanup passed](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36147315401-1/index.html), both environments at `2d939a92` | | Historical API Product coverage | [16/16 full matrix](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35875144860-1/index.html) and 18/18 core repetitions at `4a1061c8`; retained as measurements of that revision | | Native Daytona proof | Three subscription and three API MCP/permissions/resume runs passed at `bc6833f7`. Three expired-login admission and fenced refresh checks passed without inference. All test sandboxes were removed. | | Inspectable artifacts and UI | Current-source screenshots verify planning approval, direct Ask completion, question continuation after controller restart, and two downloadable project revisions. The project downloads pass 12 and 18 tests; all 40 independent artifact oracle checks pass. | | Provider-free checks | 116 eval-validator tests, 39 Grok definitions, and 359 enabled/external campaign cells pass. Continuation regressions above 2 MiB and 16 MiB failed before their fixes; 32 focused recovery/ownership/size checks pass. | The 32 unique current-source Product attempts have no failures, retries, or skipped cells, and all cleanup checks pass. Whole-workflow timing, model identity, image and provider-pack provenance, attempts, and accounting coverage are retained in the canonical reports. The report publisher's conservative `complete=false` flag is preserved; independent audits verify the exact selected source catalog and immutable result rows. Pins: Grok Build `1.0.13 (5e9a58528b76)`, ACPX `0.13.1`, ACP model `grok-4.7`. Linux binary SHA-256: `edf79521581bb5e6b95abef848491a6a742e860da3e237ebe86a280d30dce4c1`. Launcher SHA-256: `f0b698395a3704ed2ffaf84ea19bdb20c36c8a0a70b7c629c7b6ffe144e59e55`. Image: `ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip-daytona-runner@sha256:76b24edfd850219e949418b19e4ceba690e84d51d199ade426e484953329b5e9`. Image build source is `4196a4cd`, recorded separately from application source `2d939a92`; each campaign verifies the image signature and provider pack. Original failed campaigns remain available: [continuation bound](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36057718059), [scheduler/event capture](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36071063537), and [startup cleanup plus EC2 interruption](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36080870743). They retain their original grades. No Docker or Rust builds ran on the developer laptop for these follow-ups. ## Risks Merge packaging follow-up #14024 with this base before public release. The follow-up replaces the private Grok bridge package with a built-in launcher and makes the native binary an explicit sandbox prerequisite. Three separate, reviewed fixes are part of the tested integrated behavior: #13973 serializes task-run admission; #13977 captures complete event evidence; #13979 durably reconciles failed Daytona creation. Each has green CI and clean 5/5 review. Failed-create recovery has 277 plugin tests, 92 SDK tests, host-runtime recovery tests, and a real Daytona lost-deletion-receipt proof. The live proof uses a private file for journal persistence; database durability is covered by host tests. Worker death before delivery of a failure envelope remains outside that recovery mechanism. Subscription fixtures stage an authorized company login; interactive browser sign-in is not qualified. Local Product profiles ran on EC2 Linux. The temporary subscription credential was removed from the protected GitHub environment after all subscription audits, with absence verified. Runtime homes and refresh copyback remain ownership-fenced. Protocol results remain pinned to their original revisions; they are not relabeled as tests of the latest feature commit. New binary/model versions require qualification. Missing token usage and model cost remain unknown; runtime estimates do not establish a full bill. Automatic paid Grok scheduling remains disabled pending separate reviewed enablement. The 64 MiB bound can increase memory use for verbose sessions, and larger files still fail closed. No automatic legacy-agent migration occurs. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. 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>	2026-09-28 13:54:36 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	96bf004a79	fix: use persisted state for lifecycle continuation and retry budgets (#13888) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its control plane decides when a task can continue, wait, stop, or complete. > - Legacy continuation could change when an agent changed its wording without changing task state. > - Shared attempt counts also let repair and infrastructure retries affect each other's limits. > - This pull request uses persisted state and separate, bounded allowances for these decisions. > - If automatic repair stops, the task explains what happened and offers a guarded retry. > - Paired tests and real-provider evaluations verify that Stop, approvals, ownership, and spending limits remain authoritative. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: Refs #13761, Refs #11126, Refs #13610. These cover obsolete continuation dispatch and retry storms. Open and closed issues and PRs were searched for related lifecycle, continuation, and retry work. **What happened?** Legacy continuation depended on English wording and progress heuristics. Repair, failure retry, and productive continuation could consume shared counts. When bounded repair stopped, the task showed a technical recovery message without a clear next action. **Expected behavior** Persisted disposition and owned execution paths determine the next action. Missing disposition prompts bounded agent repair. Explicit work mode determines planning mode. Narrative changes and raw activity counts cannot replenish allowances. An exhausted repair shows a readable notice. An explicit retry checks current controls and preserves the assigned agent. **Steps to reproduce** Run `pnpm test:lifecycle-baseline`. The paired probes keep structured state constant while varying completion, planning, blocker, and progress prose. Run the explicit `lifecycle-baseline` and `continuation-accounting` Product E2E suites for real-provider coverage. In Storybook, open **Design previews / Recovery notice** to inspect the production component's normal, pending, acknowledged, unavailable, failure, and mobile states. ## What Changed - Hide the image attachment button, icon, and drop/paste hint in answer composers. Image paste and drop support remains available. - Merge current master and retain both browser regression sets. Use a production-stamped service worker in the offline recovery browser fixture. - Share one state-based legacy continuation decision across immediate, delayed, and recovered dispatch. Bind bounded repairs to their source run and episode. - Remove title and description wording from work-mode authority. Agents can still write requested plans in execution mode. - Persist separate failure-retry and productive-continuation counters. Disposition repair and resource waits cannot consume or reset those allowances. - Validate delayed repair identity, then recheck current gates before provider dispatch. Fence native startup cancellation. - Show **Agent needs attention**, a plain-language explanation, **Retry agent**, and expandable details in both task interfaces. Report request progress, acknowledgement, and errors inline. - Store typed recovery notice metadata. Recognize older active notices only through exact stored action and run IDs. Notice text never grants retry authority. - Use the existing recovery-action endpoint for retry. Recheck current action, status, owner, agent availability, dependencies, active runs, pending questions and confirmations, approvals, pause controls, and budget. Duplicate requests do not wake twice. - Add component, page, route, database, contract, and Storybook coverage. Keep the scenario inventory and executable evals here. Historical reports and snapshots live in the [commit-pinned paperclip-evals archive](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/blob/ce3e5afcd4a1184650f586a2b5b8be5874c66c8b/experiments/2026-09-lifecycle-authority/README.md). - Preserve unsaved project fields while the same project URL changes to its canonical alias. Do not reuse data across projects or companies. This separate fix addresses the repeated repository-editor browser failure without changing the browser test. - Keep the development service worker from intercepting Vite module reloads. Update the connection-intent browser fixture to record progress and completion through the agent API. ## Verification Merge preparation on September 25, commit `c1e8e4b7ddd9fbc4913ed55ce21b8e12906c2f97`: - Merged master `bd2030932` and resolved the browser test-list conflict by keeping both sets of regressions. - Deterministic lifecycle baseline: 1,090/1,090 assertions passed; no failures, skips, or missing selected evidence. Unit 423, runner 184, database integration 397, grading 86. - Browser support: 17/17 passed. The offline recovery test first failed with an unstamped development worker, then passed with the production stamp. Its assertions are unchanged. - Focused interaction UI and offline fallback tests: 19/19 passed. Verified the custom-answer composer in Storybook: no attachment controls or hint; entering an answer enables Next. - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. The worktree is clean. No new real-provider campaign was run. - Current CI and review: [Current PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36166011243): 55 successful checks and two optional Storybook skips. Greptile scored this exact commit 5/5. Hiding the question attachment controls is an intentional UI change; paste/drop remains available. Earlier recovery UI verification, commit `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. - Focused UI coverage: 338 tests passed across six suites (336 before the interaction guard, with the two affected suites rerun at 149 passed after it). Covers both task interfaces, the real page mutation, pending/error acknowledgement, stale state, and unavailable controls. - Recovery database integration: 352 tests passed before the interaction guard. The complete recovery-action and mutation-route suites passed 181 tests after it. The two new pending question/confirmation regressions failed before the fix and passed afterward, including resolved-interaction controls. Shared validator suite: 31 passed. E2E catalog suites: 34 passed. - Browser inspection passed for light/dark themes, mobile layout, expandable details, pending retry, acknowledgement, failure, and disabled retry. Storybook renders the production component; its request is simulated. - The broad local run hit two chat callback-order wait failures and was stopped after all CI unit/database/runner shards passed. Both local failures passed when rerun without the competing full-suite process. - CI exposed a repeated project-repository draft-loss race during canonical redirects. A new unit regression failed before the fix; all nine project-page tests now pass, including controls for other projects and companies. Both unchanged repository browser tests passed against a fresh local server. UI typecheck, production UI build, and token gates passed after this fix. - [Earlier PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36072486798) on `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: 55 successful checks, two optional Storybook skips, and no failed or pending checks. The repository browser shard passed with the production fix. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit with no unresolved review threads. The PR is mergeable. Historical, source-qualified lifecycle evidence: - Lifecycle baseline: 1,074 assertions. Native session coverage: 447 tests. Product E2E support: 515 tests. Browser support: 11 tests. Full earlier verification is retained in the archive. - [Real-provider campaign: 8/8 passed, zero retries](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35881382080-1/index.html), source `e88d210417280140b44a36449027290adcb1aeaa`. Evidence and cleanup checks passed. This includes deliberately exhausted repair cases that correctly remain blocked; it does not mean every task finished Done. This campaign predates the recovery UI change. - Archive migration verified all 16 original JSON files byte-for-byte and all 24 checksum entries. App tests do not need private archive access. [Archive PR #27](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/27) is merged. ## Risks - Agents that omit durable disposition receive at most two repair attempts by default. Prose-only completion exposes missing state rather than silently changing scheduling. - A retry is an explicit board action. The server rechecks current controls. A successful response confirms the task returned to To do; it does not claim that the provider has already started. - Existing notice metadata remains valid. Only older active notices with matching structured evidence receive the new UI. Historical notices without that evidence keep their existing rendering. No schema migration is required. - Old run records require conservative retry accounting. Tests cover old counters, alternating retry lanes, restarts, and exhausted repairs. - Historical snapshots require private `paperclip-evals` access. The app index retains public campaign links. Live campaigns qualify specific sources and scenarios; no new real-provider campaign has run for the recovery UI commit. > This fixes existing lifecycle and recovery behavior and does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted implementation, reasoning, code execution, and review. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. Historical real-provider evaluations used Codex model `gpt-5.6-sol`, separately from the implementation assistant. ## 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 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>	2026-09-25 15:28:11 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	b70641f23f	feat(plugins): support image catalogs and persistent application overlays (#13646) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Plugins extend the application without adding each integration to Core. > - A downstream image needs a way to supply prebuilt plugins. > - Some plugin UI must stay mounted as users move between pages. > - This change adds an image catalog and a persistent application slot. > - Operators can upgrade or remove these plugins through their image and configuration. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Plugin packaging, activation and application UI. **Problem or motivation** The built-in plugin catalog is fixed in Core source. Downstream images cannot add entries through an explicit catalog. Existing page slots also cannot preserve a small application overlay across route changes. **Proposed solution** Read a bounded catalog of prebuilt plugins from the image. Verify its files before importing manifests. Use the existing managed selection and plugin lifecycle. Add an `appShellOverlay` slot with account and company cleanup. **Alternatives considered** A downstream fork adds merge work. Script injection provides no plugin lifecycle. A separate runtime download system adds a second distribution channel. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing plugin system. Related PR #9006 covers runtime install replication; this change covers immutable image contents. PR #12555 covers CLI scaffolding. Neither provides this catalog or application slot. The maintainer requested this work directly. ## What Changed - Validate catalog identities, confined paths, package versions and bundle hashes before importing code. - Apply image selection to persisted plugin installs, including removal and rollback. Adopt the verified image path from existing npm/local installs and bind runtime worker/UI entrypoints to verified package declarations. - Mount application overlays in both UI shells. Preserve route state and clear it on account, company and onboarding changes. - Restrict service-worker offline storage/fallback to hashed public assets in a separate cache namespace; exclude application HTML and extension/API data, including after worker restart. - Document the packaging contract, trust model and rollback requirements. ## Verification - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm check:token-gates`. Affected server/UI typechecks and builds, plus token gates, passed again after rebasing onto current master; the 124 focused tests also passed after rebase. - Latest focused verification: 124 tests in nine files passed for catalog/reconciliation/loader, overlay lifecycle, Layout and service-worker policy. The broader UI/shared/SDK run passed 7,204 tests in 690 files with canonical `TMPDIR`. - Real disposable Core/PostgreSQL: catalog install, selection removal, 0.1.0→0.1.1→0.1.0, same-version npm/legacy-path adoption, and preservation of disabled status passed. Added permissions entered `upgrade_pending`, withheld UI across restart, and activated only after explicit operator enable. - Real Chromium: desktop/mobile layout, route draft retention and Escape/focus passed with mocked extension responses. A persistent browser restart retained public hashed-asset offline fallback while refusing seeded legacy/current private entries and legacy HTML. - Full `pnpm test:run`: 12,539 passed; 17 failed across six existing files, stopping later phases. macOS read-only directory renames fail in runtime-skill-cache and company-skills-service; email tests require an absent local AgentMail fixture. Native runner/comment-redaction passed in isolation after temporary Rust setup; agent-conversations also passed in isolation. No unrelated source was changed to hide failures. - After rebase, two unchanged chat timing tests failed in CI and passed locally in isolation. Their CI shard passed on its single retry. All other current-head CI jobs passed on the initial run; review is 5/5 with no unresolved threads. - No live deployment or external plugin service was used. ## Risks - Plugins are trusted code. The catalog detects packaging errors; it does not authenticate an untrusted image builder. - Invalid catalogs fail startup. Images must contain the catalog and bundles together, with stable directories. - A host older than this contract lacks the activation guard. Disable added plugins and remove their configuration keys before reverting to it. - Offline navigation now returns 503 instead of replaying cached application HTML. Only public build assets have offline fallback. - Rolling back an unapproved permission change retains the approval gate; review the current manifest and explicitly enable it. A reduced permission set cannot establish prior approval or prior enabled status. - Plugin data migrations need their own rollback policy. This change retains installed records and does not reverse migrations. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex), model ID `gpt-6`, with repository inspection, code execution and browser verification. The runtime does not expose an exact 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 (relevant suites; broad macOS server-run exceptions are documented above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green (fresh run on 488b3754ae; chat shard passed its single retry) - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (fresh review on 488b3754ae) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-19 09:18:10 -07:00