2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	7bc03e0acd	feat(runner): default harnesses to full auto and support task reassignment (#13686) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their work. > - Agent Chat uses native runners to save plans and coordinate tasks. > - Provider defaults differed across harnesses and could stop unattended work at a second permission gate. > - Agents also lacked a dedicated tool to move existing work to another agent safely. > - This change defaults native providers to full automatic permission for provider tools and connected tools. > - A guarded reassignment tool preserves task identity, stops the previous run, and schedules the new owner once. > - Codex and Claude chat acceptance tests now use production permission defaults. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Native runner, ACPX Claude permission policy, task authority, and Agent Chat acceptance tests. **Problem or motivation** A user can authorize an agent to save a plan or create a task, but Claude's default provider gate can still stop that action. Reassignment needs a dedicated operation that preserves context and avoids concurrent owners or unintended recovery runs. **Proposed solution** Default Claude/ACPX to `approve-all`, OpenCode to `allow`, and Codex to `never`. Apply the defaults at configuration, execution, fresh-session, resume, driver, and proxy boundaries. Keep explicit permission settings and server-side company, claim, task-mode, and approval checks. Add `reassign_task` with version checks, durable idempotency, audited cancellation, and guarded successor scheduling. **Alternatives considered** A Paperclip-only allowlist still blocks provider tools and other connections during unattended work. Full automatic permission is the requested product default. Recreating a task discards its identity and history. Updating assignment without stopping the previous run can leave two agents working on the same task. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing planning, delegated work, governed tool access, and recovery features. It adds no new service or schema migration. Recent related tasks and open PRs were checked for duplicate work. **Additional context** Related: #13678 (Agent Chat tools and recovery), #13677 (remote runner startup). The stacked legacy-adapter companion is #13693. This also fixes the deployed-server artifact fallback needed to stage the current runner binary. ## What Changed - Default Claude/ACPX to `approve-all`, OpenCode to `allow`, and Codex to `never`, including missing settings at direct driver and proxy entry points. These defaults cover provider tools and connected tools. Preserve explicitly configured restrictive modes. - Include assigned approval reads using canonical side-effect classifications, so verifying a recorded approval does not trigger another provider gate. Paperclip approval decisions still enforce controller authority. - Carry the new permission mode through server configuration, execution contracts, recovery identity, TypeScript, and Rust. Keep `approve-paperclip` as an optional restricted mode, with exact SDK rules and closed unknown requests. It is not a default. - Add `reassign_task` to the semantic catalog, controller, mock authority, and generated contracts. - Guard reassignment with company authorization, expected owner and version, protected-state checks, and durable retry receipts. - Honor explicit backlog task creation atomically with the initial plan, without scheduling a wake. Preserve backlog holds regardless of dependency readiness. - Stop active work before changing ownership. Restore the prior owner through a guarded, idempotent wake if final handoff validation fails. Keep intentional reassignment stops out of failure recovery. Preserve backlog and blocked states without waking them early. - Add authorization, concurrency, replay, stop, and permission boundary regressions. Add Codex and Claude chat reassignment cases and run native chat cases with production defaults. - Clarify shared runner guidance: save plans and Paperclip documents directly with `write_document`; create and register a local file only when a downloadable file is requested. - Document provider defaults and the operator choices for existing agents. ## Verification - Current head `d82fbb0f03546d27cecf072250e4172e0b1ee662`: **55 checks passed**, with two intentional skips. [PR checks](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13686/checks). - Greptile reviewed that exact head at **5/5**. The security reviewer acknowledged the intended full-auto default, and the acknowledged discussions are resolved. - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally after rebasing onto current master. Targeted adapter/server, runner, API, default/resume, and heartbeat configuration tests passed. - **All six real-provider acceptance cases passed on their first attempt, with cleanup passing:** plan handoff, task reassignment, and backlog creation/status, each on native Claude and Codex. Evidence records Claude's effective `approve-all` mode. [Campaign and downloadable evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35469926548). - The live campaign tested combined revision `a37881c824dcd7170380fc4b788732fc743e5da7`. The final PR heads add only a heartbeat test expectation correction; application code is unchanged from that live-tested revision. - The campaign's result-enforcement job passed. Its separate report publisher failed because the trusted workflow's `patchedDependencies` configuration differs from its frozen lockfile. All six results and screenshots remain available as GitHub artifacts. The overall manual workflow is red for this publishing failure. - Full-suite coverage is supplied by the passing CI partitions. The separate unsharded local run was stopped after the corresponding CI partitions passed; it is not counted as a completed local run. - Reassignment tests cover stale state, cross-company access, denied authority, cancellation failure, compensating wake, and idempotent retries. Backlog tests verify the original creation audit, saved plan, exact task count, and absence of task-bound runs. ## Risks - Agents with no explicit permission mode now receive full provider tool permission, including connected tools. This is a deliberate broad default. Existing explicit restrictive modes still apply. Controller authorization, company isolation, workspace boundaries, and Paperclip governance remain in force. - Reassignment crosses run cancellation and task ownership transactions. Durable stop intent, revalidation, audit receipts, and guarded queue dispatch cover interruptions and retries. - The new permission enum requires a current runner artifact. The remote artifact fallback uses the same resolved controller binary for upload and execution. - Live provider behavior remains subject to the selected model. Targeted live results do not qualify the full catalog. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with code execution and repository tools. The exact deployment 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>	2026-09-19 16:49:18 -05:00
Dotta	1ed29abaa6	fix(runner): harden dormant provider boundaries (#12654) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Runner currently enables only the Codex production path. > - The package also contains dormant OpenCode and ACPX provider boundaries. > - Dormant boundaries must still fail safe before later activation work. > - Provider children must not inherit unrelated server secrets or host homes. > - Permission defaults must require interaction instead of broad automatic approval. > - This pull request hardens those boundaries without activating them. > - The benefit is a safer base for later provider-specific runnerd work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves the inactive OpenCode and ACPX provider boundary in Paperclip Runner. **Subsystem affected** The adapter permission contract, Runner provider environment, and native execution input builder. **Current behavior** Dormant OpenCode code can inherit the full server environment. Its default permission mode allows operations. ACPX also defaults to broad approval. The provider guard can accept inherited object property names. **Proposed behavior** Use exact provider identifiers. Use interactive defaults. Allow only required OpenCode environment keys. Reject invalid proxy permission modes. **Reason and benefit** This reduces accidental authority and secret exposure before future provider activation. **Breaking changes** No production provider is activated. Codex runtime selection and Codex credential-home discovery do not change. Dormant OpenCode and ACPX callers that omit permission modes now receive safer defaults. ## What Changed - Change dormant OpenCode and ACPX permission defaults to interactive modes. - Reject prototype property names as provider identifiers. - Default dormant ACPX input to the qualified Codex agent profile. - Add an explicit OpenCode runner environment allowlist. - Exclude host homes, server credentials, database values, and Node injection options. - Add a fail-closed OpenCode proxy permission parser. - Add focused tests for defaults, filtering, and invalid values. ## Verification GitHub Actions must run: - Adapter utility tests. - Paperclip Runner tests, type checks, and build. - Server native runtime tests. - Repository test, type-check, build, policy, and security gates. No local test command was run. The repository owner requested GitHub-only verification. ## Risks Future OpenCode credential providers must add required variables to the allowlist through review. The safer defaults can pause dormant internal scenarios that relied on implicit broad approval. Production Codex behavior is unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with the GPT-5 agent model. The work used high reasoning, repository inspection, tool use, and parallel security 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 (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 - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-09-01 04:46:36 -05:00