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
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
DottaandPaperclip	2ceb630b6c	fix(workspaces): preserve dependency provisioning failures (#13093 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip runs agent work in isolated worktrees. > - Each worktree needs dependencies that match its source and patches. > - A failed install currently loses its exit status after an `if` statement. > - The provisioner can then record a successful dependency fingerprint. > - This pull request preserves failures and bounds lockfile recovery. > - Agents receive a usable workspace or an accurate provisioning failure. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A nonzero pnpm install could return success and save a fingerprint. Patch changes alone also did not invalidate the fingerprint. Expected behavior: Fail provisioning on an unsuccessful install. Retry known frozen-lockfile mismatches once and record success only after installation succeeds. Steps to reproduce: Run the provisioner in a worktree with a pnpm install that exits nonzero. The regression suite uses real shell execution and a controlled pnpm fixture. Paperclip version or commit: Reproduced on master before this change. Deployment mode: Self-hosted. Installation method: Git checkout. Agent adapters involved: Core workspace provisioning. Database mode: Not relevant. Access context: Execution host. Node.js version: 26.4.0 locally; supported minimum remains unchanged. Operating system: macOS locally and Linux execution hosts. Relevant logs or output: `ERR_PNPM_LOCKFILE_CONFIG_MISMATCH`, `ERR_PNPM_OUTDATED_LOCKFILE`, and ordinary installation failures. Additional context: Related lockfile maintenance: #13061. No lockfile or workflow changes are included. ## What Changed - Capture the failed install status inside the `else` branch. - Use the existing single retry for both frozen-lockfile mismatch errors. - Include patch contents in the dependency fingerprint. - Add executable regression coverage and document the behavior. ## Verification - All CI checks passed, including build, typecheck, tests, browser suites, canary dry run, and security scans. Greptile: 5/5 with no remaining findings. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/provision-worktree-self-heal.test.mjs`: 19 passed; one existing test requires Linux flock and was skipped on macOS. - `bash -n scripts/provision-worktree.sh` and `git diff --check` passed. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed in the companion runner-fix worktree at the same base revision. This change only touches shell provisioning, its tests, and documentation. - CI and review are pending. ## Risks The existing non-frozen recovery can update a worktree-local lockfile. Committed lockfile updates remain bot-owned. Ordinary failures now correctly stop provisioning and may expose previously hidden installation problems. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with code editing, shell execution, tests, and browser inspection. The exact 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 - [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 10:14:58 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2043e0c735	fix: repair runner configuration, macOS execution, and artifact galleries (#13062 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent adapters select a provider, a model, and a runtime. > - Runner conversion rejected existing Claude agents. The model list mixed providers. > - The native Claude runner rejected custom models and could not launch on macOS. > - This pull request fixes conversion, model selection, and verified macOS execution. > - It also groups configuration fields consistently across adapters and opens artifact images in the task gallery. > - Operators can change an agent configuration and run the selected model on their Mac. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Converting an existing Claude agent to Paperclip Runner failed with a Codex-only restriction. ACPX Claude showed unrelated models and required `claude-sonnet-5`. Its native runtime rejected macOS. Configuration mixed common model settings with process controls. Artifact cards labeled “Open gallery” navigated to attachment URLs instead of opening the task gallery. Expected behavior Conversion keeps agent identity and compatible settings. ACPX Claude uses the normal Claude catalog and accepts typed model IDs. Codex uses the native runner. The verified Claude runtime can launch on macOS ARM64 and x64. Common configuration sections place the same fields together across adapters. Artifact images open in the shared task gallery with navigation and downloads. Steps to reproduce 1. Open the configuration of an existing Claude agent. 2. Convert it to Paperclip Runner. 3. Select ACPX Claude and a different catalog model or a typed model ID. 4. Save the agent and run a disposable task on macOS. 5. Inspect configuration and advanced run-policy controls across adapters. Paperclip version or commit The bugs were reproduced on `165ca56a22adb60e5fda56045442d9c8498116a8`. This branch was rebased onto `7ed122911`. Deployment mode Built from source. Local test-drive instance on macOS ARM64 with an isolated database. Related work: #11798 addresses unsupported ACP session options in the existing adapter path. #13048 addresses working-folder preservation. This change fixes native runner configuration and launch behavior. ## What Changed - Remove the Codex-only conversion restriction. Preserve agent identity, instructions, directories, credentials, and compatible model settings. Reset incompatible sessions while retaining history. - Show ACPX Claude and native Codex as distinct provider choices. Remove ACPX Codex from advertised configuration. Normalize legacy configurations before fresh runs without rewriting historical run descriptors. - Select model catalogs and cache entries by provider. Support refresh and typed model IDs. Pass exact Claude IDs through session creation, model changes, and recovery. - Add verified macOS ARM64 and x64 Claude SDK snapshots. Bound executable allocation and total snapshot size. Preserve package checks, dependency isolation, process ownership, cancellation, and Linux descriptor loading. - Probe local runtime readiness. Report remote platform checks as incomplete until the remote runner verifies its runtime. - Surface actual model rejection and allow correction and retry. - Repair missing ACPX goal-capability helpers exposed by the post-rebase live test. Persist and restore the optional capability without breaking session startup. - Put Agent identity first and intentionally remove the Capabilities editor, as requested. This is removal of UI editing, not relocation: preserve existing capability metadata and API compatibility without adding another editor. Use the themed select for configurable permission modes, with normal text instead of monospace. - Put model and provider under Adapter. Give environment variables their own section. Fold command and arguments under Configuration. Fold lifecycle, timeout, and interrupt grace under Advanced Run Policy. Hide single-option permission controls. - Open image and video artifact cards in the existing task gallery, including cards in the artifacts panel. Chat attachment images use the same gallery. Preserve standalone media previews and download links. ## Verification - Rebased focused UI/API/database suites: 293 tests passed. - Rebased native runtime and ACPX suites: 242 passed, 7 skipped. - Repository typecheck, build, and token gates passed for the runner changes. Gallery follow-up UI typecheck, build, and token gates also passed. - Follow-up UI suites passed (86 tests), packaging checks passed (14 tests), and the final focused runtime suites passed (126 passed, 7 skipped). - Linux container isolation and lifecycle fixtures passed before rebase (57 passed, 2 skipped). Rust ACPX provider-session tests passed after rebase (8 tests). - Browser tests completed actual Claude and native Codex tasks on macOS ARM64. They covered conversion, catalog refresh, a non-default catalog model, a typed `haiku` ID, save/reload, cancel, follow-up session continuity, invalid-model errors, and recovery. - Final-revision live tests completed a typed Claude task, a follow-up with the same provider session, and a native Codex task on macOS ARM64. - Browser tests confirmed the moved interrupt-grace field saves and survives reload. Cross-adapter tests cover Claude, Codex, Gemini, process, gateway, and schema forms. - Full local run: 7,080 passed, 30 skipped, and two timeouts. Both timeout suites passed on isolated rerun (84 tests); the failures were the plugin login-worker exit diagnostic and the runner real-server vertical slice. - Final follow-up checks: 50 registry tests and 45 snapshot/installation tests passed (6 platform-specific skips). Oversized executable rejection is covered before allocation or reading; unsupported-platform tests invoke the real installation probe. - Runner head `ddb5101c483a297f74875ab96b3c66035b002d50`: all CI gates green, including full runner verification, repository build, typecheck, general/serialized server suites, browser tests, and canary dry run. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34286178670). - Greptile: 5/5 on that runner head. All four review threads resolved. Superagent, Socket, and Snyk checks green. - After snapshot hardening, another real Claude task completed on this Mac using the rebuilt runtime. - Gallery follow-up: 148 focused tests passed, covering artifact selection, shared attachment collections, deduplication, image/video cards, standalone previews, downloads, and closing. Live browser verification completed on the settings follow-up: artifact selection, 6-image pagination with wrapping, download action, and closing all stayed on the same task URL. All checks passed on gallery head `96136da58ff195bf6ca00b281eb3022ad12d7bd8`: [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34287987536). Greptile returned 5/5 on that exact head with no unresolved threads. - Final settings polish: 96 focused tests, UI typecheck/build, and token gates passed. A real browser walkthrough verified readable permission options, identity placement, Capabilities removal, and permission save/reload. Original test-agent permission mode restored. All 31 checks passed on final head `e46540d6bf32bfb0566dca16b2f4a75ba437618c`: [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34292797886). Greptile returned 5/5 with no unresolved threads. ## Risks - Capabilities intentionally has no editable UI field after this change. Existing values remain readable and API-compatible; removing the field does not erase stored metadata. - macOS launch now copies verified package files into private snapshots. The implementation must retain isolation and clean up snapshots on exit. - Runtime provider or model changes reset the current session. Historical runs remain available. - The macOS x64 SDK executable digest was verified, but a live Intel Mac run was not available. Linux verification used container fixtures, not a real Claude task. - Remote environment tests report a warning when only the platform has been checked. They do not claim package readiness from the server host. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The exact served model identifier and context-window limit are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, Rust and TypeScript tests, and browser automation. ## 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 suites and both timeout suites on rerun; full-run counts 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>	2026-09-08 19:10:09 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7ed122911b	Add end-to-end session goals to Paperclip Runner Add capability-aware slash-goal controls, durable provider goal state, PRP v2 negotiation, autonomous goal execution, and safe local session recovery. Integrate with current master, preserve provider session identity, and verify the browser goal/chat/replacement/clear workflow and unsupported-agent rejection. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-08 16:18:47 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	e095b84dab	feat(connections): connect services from native task feeds (#13058 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents use connections to reach external services. > - A fresh native task can have no service tools installed. > - The agent needs a way to discover services and ask the responsible person for access. > - This pull request brings the existing connection-intent flow into native task execution. > - The person can connect from the task, and the agent can continue with updated tools. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Native runner tool authority, connection intents, task interactions, and shared connection setup. Problem or motivation A task that needs an unconnected service cannot finish its work. Leaving the task to configure access also loses context. A resolved request must survive a restart and resume the correct agent once. Proposed solution Expose connection discovery and access requests as server-owned native tools. Render a durable task card and use the shared setup dialog. Persist outcome delivery and start a fresh provider session after access is ready. Alternatives considered Sending the person to the Connections page adds navigation and does not solve continuation. Polling for authorization consumes runs and can create duplicate requests. Roadmap alignment This extends the existing connection-intent runtime and setup experience. It reuses the shared access model and the native runner. Related: #12345, #12347. The service-slug fix in #12906 is related but separate. Companion evaluation PR: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/21. ## What Changed - Expose `connections_search` and `connection_request` with server-bound company, task, agent, and responsible user. Preserve the legacy entry points. - Discover catalog services and authorized custom connections. Check installation, identity, health, and executable permissions before reporting ready. - Keep pending cards through ordinary messages. Reuse requests and retire stale ownership. Put Connect at the right of Not now. - Reuse the shared setup flow in a task dialog. Keep access additive and default to the requesting agent. Recover from cancelled or blocked OAuth windows with a new-tab fallback. - Persist outcome delivery with an idempotent wake key. Resume in a fresh session and recheck ownership before dispatch. - Add native browser fixtures, offline Storybook states, server contracts, and evaluation fixtures. Update guidance and documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm build`: passed after replaying the change on current master. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook`: passed. - New continuation-policy regression cases: 16 passed. - Docker-backed PostgreSQL regressions passed for requester-only OAuth access, assignment-only expiry, terminal expiry, and credential-free setup metadata. - Shared setup and task-card UI tests: 121 passed, including configured MCP reconnect URL recovery and preserving user edits across refetch. - Storybook browser checks: all 119 passed on the latest reconnect fix. - `pnpm test:run`: 4,734 tests passed in the first server group, but embedded PostgreSQL startup failures and resulting cleanup errors prevented a complete local pass. All Linux CI lanes passed on the latest reviewed commit. One external-object route test returned an unexplained 500 on the first run; it passed twice locally and the failed shard passed on retry without code changes. - Earlier feature-checkout evidence: three deterministic native browser journeys passed, including restart delivery and an actual fixture tool result. Legacy scripted coverage also passed. All 59 added stories were inspected in light and dark themes. - Live Notion testing recorded successful provider reads. The manual test used a local-trusted instance. It does not prove authenticated/cloud deployment or every provider journey. - Native browser rerun reached the embedded PostgreSQL startup limit before bootstrap, so the latest checkout’s full native browser journey remains unverified. Both OAuth page/task regression cases passed against isolated Docker-backed PostgreSQL 17. They verify no premature task access, requester-only completion, additive retries, and reconnect preservation. - Applied both new migrations twice to isolated PostgreSQL 17. Foreign keys remained intact, duplicate active delivery keys were rejected, and failed delivery records did not block retries. Reviewer path: start a fresh test drive, enable the native runner, use an agent that can perform work directly, and ask it to summarize a Notion page. Connect from the card, then verify the resumed provider call and source-linked answer. The default test-drive CEO is instructed to delegate, so it can introduce an unrelated hiring step. ## Risks - Two additive migrations create durable deliveries and a partial unique wake index. They are idempotent. The wake index can require a maintenance window on large tables because migrations run in a transaction. - OAuth and continuation cross asynchronous boundaries. Tests cover ownership changes, retries, additive access, and restart delivery; live provider behavior still varies. - The latest requester-scope fix has not yet been exercised through live OAuth. GitHub, API-key, authenticated-user, and all recovery journeys are not claimed as verified. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6-based Codex assisted with implementation, tests, and review using tools and code execution. The runtime does not expose the exact model version, context window, or reasoning setting. Live evaluation used `gpt-5.6-luna`; manual native testing used `gpt-5.6-sol`. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used and disclosed unavailable runtime details - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this extends existing connection 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 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 ticket id - [ ] I have run all required tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented risks - [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>	2026-09-08 15:55:26 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	f65991a5f1	refactor(server): move scheduled-retry and queued-run dispatch into a run-dispatch module (#12920 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The server heartbeat service dispatches scheduled retries and queued runs. > - The service kept policy decisions and database writes in one large file. > - This layout made policy branches harder to test and transaction boundaries harder to inspect. > - This pull request moves the policy rules and database transactions into a run-dispatch module. > - The benefit is a smaller service, pure policy tests, and clear transaction ownership. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The server heartbeat service promotes scheduled retries and cancels stale queued runs. Subsystem affected server/ — REST API and orchestration services. Current behavior The heartbeat service contains the policy rules and the database writes for these dispatch paths. Proposed behavior A run-dispatch module owns pure policy functions and semantic database transactions. The public service contracts stay unchanged. Reason and benefit The new layout separates branch rules from database effects. It makes each policy branch easier to test and keeps each operation’s row writes in one transaction. Breaking changes None. The public service contracts stay unchanged. ## What Changed - Move scheduled-retry promotion and queued-run staleness rules into pure functions. - Add table-driven unit tests for each policy branch. - Move promotion and cancellation writes into semantic transactions. - Keep row locking, company isolation, and post-commit effects unchanged. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passes. - `tsc --noEmit` from `server/` reports no errors. - The focused server test command passes 228 tests in six files. - Full pull request CI passes. - Greptile reports 5/5, and all review threads are resolved. ## Risks The main risk concerns changed transaction boundaries in scheduled-retry promotion and queued-run cancellation. The focused tests retain coverage for locking, transactionality, company isolation, and transport contracts. The public service contracts do not change. ## Model Used Codex, GPT-5, with code execution and tool use. The context window is not provided by the runtime. ## 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 have addressed all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-08 11:00:55 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	c723bb4dfc	fix(skills): reuse validated runtime revisions during preparation (#13042 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and prepares their runtime inputs before each turn. > - Shared company skills are part of those inputs for native and legacy adapters. > - Runtime materialization refreshed the full inventory again for every declared file. > - Remote skill directories were also downloaded and rebuilt on every turn. > - Measured preparation took 42–73 seconds while runner execution took 7–9 seconds. > - This change reads the inventory once and reuses validated installed revisions. > - Agents retain their selected skills while repeated preparation avoids upstream work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? One 114-skill preparation performed 407 inventory refreshes, 48 directory rebuilds, and 388 GitHub file fetches. Reusing existing local copies took 151 ms. Expected behavior Each listing refreshes inventory once. Unchanged installed remote revisions reuse complete, validated local copies. Local edits remain visible. Explicit updates select new revisions. Steps to reproduce 1. Import GitHub skills with supporting files. 2. Run an agent turn, then run another with the same installed revisions. 3. Observe repeated inventory scans, downloads, and runtime directory replacement before execution. Related prior attempts: #2330 and #9268 (still open; #9268 last updated July 9). Those use a marker compared with `updatedAt`. This patch follows the required content validation, immutable revision, company isolation, atomic publication, and read-only semantics, and removes refresh-per-file multiplication. ## What Changed - Split public file reading from reading an already loaded skill. Runtime listing refreshes inventory once. - Add a company-scoped revision cache with file manifests outside the delivered skill directory. Fingerprints omit cosmetic metadata. - Validate exact file inventory, sizes, and hashes before warm reuse. Reject traversal and symlinks. Stage complete builds and serialize atomic publication across processes. - Preserve local/catalog direct sources, stored Markdown fallback, explicit version snapshots, and legacy mutable-ref compatibility. Report missing supporting files and keep older valid revisions readable. - Clean both runtime layouts on rename/removal and record `skills.prepare` under preparation timing. - Add service/cache regressions and an isolated 114-skill benchmark, including a new-process warm run. ## Verification - Final targeted skill-service/cache/trace validation: 86 tests pass (61 embedded-PostgreSQL service tests, 19 cache tests, 6 trace tests). Database tests executed rather than skipped. Focused skill routes, adapter selection, and native runtime context also pass. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass locally at `22caa1fe4`. - The full `pnpm test:run` matrix passes on supported Linux CI at the final head: [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34236097762). Local full-suite execution encountered PostgreSQL startup contention, a random allocated-port boundary, and a socket hang-up; every affected suite passed on an isolated rerun. The interrupted local serialized run is not claimed as a complete local pass. - Repeatable benchmark: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-skill-preparation.ts`. Mixed 114-skill inventory with 429 remote files on Linux: cold 286 ms, warm median 96 ms / maximum 153 ms including a new process. Every warm sample performs one refresh, zero upstream fetches/rebuilds, and reports no missing entries; content assertions pass. - Controlled deployment against the previously deployed revision completed with zero lost runs. Real inventory: 114 skills, 670 declared files; 402 cached files match the prior installed copies byte-for-byte. Ten post-deployment warm preparations: median 129 ms / maximum 208 ms; new-process warm 194 ms, zero downloads/rebuilds/missing entries. - Five sequential real browser questions persisted in 10.6–20.7 s (median 12.2 s), versus 50–83 s before. Skill preparation median 240 ms, with one 2.37 s outlier. Total preparation median 3.337 s / maximum 8.728 s does not fully meet the <3 s / <5 s target. The excluded historical-run redaction query takes about 1.36 s per scan at two preparation call sites; wider application latency coincided with the outlier, without a cache rebuild. These residuals are reported rather than discarded. - Disposable skill reimport verified through actual selected-skill runs: the next run read the changed code. Fixture removed and agent configuration verified unchanged. - Greptile 5/5, zero unresolved review threads, all final-head CI checks green. ## Risks - Cold preparation still requires upstream availability for supporting files. An unavailable revision is reported missing and never falls back to an older revision. - Valid older revisions and quarantined invalid entries consume additive disk space until skill cleanup. An abruptly killed publisher can leave a lock that requires operator cleanup after confirming its PID is dead. - Warm validation reads all cached file bytes. Very large inventories still have proportional local I/O cost. - No HTTP API, schema, agent configuration, or first-party Telemetry changes. OpenTelemetry retains its operator endpoint gate. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and test execution. The exact serving snapshot 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 (targeted and isolated reruns; full Linux CI matrix passes, local full-run caveats 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>	2026-09-08 09:35:32 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	0cc796b7bd	Build isolated preview artifacts for exact-source deployments (#13041 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Managed deployments need a cloud image and a database migration package. > - Branch commits can lack both artifacts until a normal release runs. > - Operators need to test an exact commit without advancing release aliases. > - This pull request adds a preview build mode to the existing release workflow. > - Builds use an immutable source SHA and publish isolated, reusable artifacts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Release automation, cloud Docker images, and shared/database npm packages. Problem or motivation An operator cannot deploy an unpublished branch with new migrations using only the normal release artifacts. Publishing it through a normal lane would also advance shared release aliases. Proposed solution Dispatch the trusted release workflow on master with a full source SHA and a request UUID. Build missing SHA images and, when needed, deterministic preview shared/DB packages. Publish packages under the preview dist-tag with exact workspace pins. Reuse matching artifacts on retries. Roadmap alignment This extends release tooling for operator validation. It does not add a core product feature or duplicate a planned product capability. Related PR searches found no duplicate preview deployment workflow. ## What Changed - Add the preview channel, request correlation, artifact checks, and result artifact. - Compile source packages in a separate job from the npm publisher. The publisher uses trusted master code and disables package lifecycle scripts. - Publish only SHA cloud image tags. Preserve release aliases. Use full-SHA tags and no shared build cache. - Verify full source identity for reused packages and images. Both image and npm publishers use isolated jobs and the externally master-restricted npm-canary environment. Fail on registry authentication errors, outages, or artifact identity mismatches. - Let bundled-package preparation use patches from the requested source checkout. - Document publishing configuration, artifact contracts, and deployment order. ## Verification - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. - Passed `pnpm test:release-registry`: 107 tests, including eight preview tests. - Passed `actionlint -shellcheck= .github/workflows/release.yml`. - Built real shared and DB preview tarballs from an isolated exact-SHA checkout. Verified package source identity and all 244 SQL files and journal entries. - Verified the full revision behind an existing published SHA cloud image. - `pnpm test:run` exposed missing local embedded PostgreSQL library symlinks. The package's postinstall repair restored initdb; all 12 previously affected suites passed on rerun (95 tests). Additional local matrix reruns are in progress. The complete PR CI matrix is green, including general/serialized tests, e2e, typecheck, build, release registry, canary dry run, and the required verify gate. - Live preview publication and staging deployment require this workflow on master and the compatible control-plane backend. They have not run yet. No production deployment was performed. ## Risks Preview npm versions are immutable public artifacts. Both packages must retain their trusted publisher for release.yml in environment npm-canary. Source builds must remain separated from privileged npm publishing. The deploying control plane must verify source identity, integrity, and migration compatibility before use. Normal release jobs retain their existing conditions. Roll back by stopping preview dispatches and reverting the workflow/tooling. Published preview versions remain isolated from normal release tags. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository tools, code execution, and test runs. The session does not expose a more specific model version 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 the available 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 - [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the feature template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket identifier - [ ] I have run the full tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added tests for the new behavior - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open recommendations or follow-ups - [x] I will address review comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-08 09:21:58 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	5bddff0920	feat(runner): add guarded API search and call fallback (#13003 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - The new runner gives agents dedicated tools for common tasks. > - Some API operations and parameters have no dedicated tool. > - Agents need a controlled way to find and use those operations. > - This pull request adds API search and calls through the real server routes. > - Existing tools remain the preferred path. The new tools are disabled by default. > - Paired tests measure correctness, tool choice, cost and time. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Paperclip Runner contracts, production tool authority and the server API catalog. Problem or motivation The runner cannot use much of the API described by the old Paperclip skill. A generic HTTP client would also let agents bypass runner control rules. Proposed solution Add `search_api` and `call_api`. Resolve calls from the mounted API catalog. Use server-held, run-bound credentials. Preserve route checks and runner lifecycle rules. Keep the tools disabled until an operator enables selected companies. Alternatives considered A dedicated tool for every endpoint would add a large initial prompt. An unrestricted HTTP tool would weaken authorization and replay controls. Roadmap alignment This extends the native runner tooling. The repository owner requested this design and implementation. The roadmap and related open PRs were checked. No duplicate API escape-hatch PR was found. ## What Changed - Register two compact fallback tools in canonical contracts and provider projections. - Build deterministic API discovery from OpenAPI, mounted experimental routes and the old skill reference. - Execute bounded JSON, text, file and download requests through authenticated HTTP routes. - Recheck active runs, company access and work modes. Block runner lifecycle, scheduling, credential and approval bypasses. Keep routine annotation collaboration available. - Retain mutation receipts. Report uncertain outcomes without blindly repeating writes. - Add a company rollout gate and a durable eval worker with complete cost accounting checks. - Record child-task creation in the activity log with the agent and run. - Add contract, authorization, file, replay and real runnerd/PRP/HTTP tests. - Document rollout gates and paid coverage limits. The companion eval repository retains immutable attempts and reports. ## Verification - Final app commit `da58370524c3626a744eec20164397c5fb6ba9ef`: all 32 checks passed; the unrelated Storybook visual check was skipped. Greptile 5/5; no unresolved review threads. - Full Linux build and recursive typecheck passed. Repository tests were run by project and serialized shard; all 143 serialized server suites passed. - Runner TypeScript: 1,599 passed, two skipped. Rust release: 451 passing test reports. Conformance and replay parity passed. The required API check passed 837 tests, including runnerd → PRP → authority → real HTTP. - Bindings cannot enable API tools without the explicit deployment flag. Unit and real-authority tests prove the default-off boundary. - The standalone API check builds and stages its own binary. It passed after existing staged and debug binaries were removed from the test container. - UI and CLI tests passed. Initial environment failures (missing jq, Docker overlay file identity, and parallel linker memory pressure) and focused passing reruns are retained. The macOS full runner suite has platform-specific failures; Linux is the qualified full-check platform. - Eval harness: 27 tests passed; existing CI discovery ran 86 tests with two unrelated skips. Credential export rejection is tested against the actual report command. - Luna and OpenRouter Sonnet each passed 60 common-workflow runs: ten workflows, three repetitions per arm, zero unnecessary API fallback. - Sonnet passed 11 selected capability/contract cases after fixes. Gemini passed three smoke cases. DeepSeek exceeded the 120-second limit and remains unqualified. - Luna's two cost flags received focused follow-up. The original flags and a later n=1 latency flag remain visible. Sonnet had no cost or latency increase above 20%. - The catalog contains 785 entries; 58 were exercised across all stages. Most operation probes remain unrun and some need additional fixtures. Authored probes do not establish successful coverage. - Total conservative accounted cost: $9.875960. Active paid-campaign time: 88.16/90 minutes. No missing accounting. Later security and harness fixes have provider-free verification; no paid validation is claimed for those revisions. - Inspect the [qualification report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/blob/codex/seach-call-api-tools/evals/runner-api-tools/reports/2026-09-07-production/READINESS.md) and [verification record](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/blob/codex/seach-call-api-tools/evals/runner-api-tools/reports/2026-09-07-production/verification.json). ## Risks - This is a broad authenticated API surface. Keep the default-off gate until an operator selects initial rollout companies. - Paid coverage is incomplete. Small regression samples do not prove all workflows are unchanged. - A timeout or server failure can follow a committed mutation. The result reports an unknown outcome and requires state inspection. - The new definitions add prompt tokens. The report retains cost flags and cache variation. - No database migration is required. - Repository rules require code-owner approval before merge. Technical CI and automated review are complete. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-6 assisted with code, tests and review. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. It used reasoning, tool calls and code execution. Eval models: `gpt-5.6-luna` with low reasoning, `openrouter/anthropic/claude-sonnet-5`, `openrouter/google/gemini-3.8-flash`, and `openrouter/deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731`. Attempts retain runtime versions, model identity, usage and source provenance. ## 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>	2026-09-07 14:14:43 -05:00
Dotta	af8439a70b	feat(runner): restore direct live eval campaigns and reports (#12909 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Runner executes agents through native and managed provider drivers. > - The direct live eval layer had drifted from the current Runner contracts. > - The old local workflow did not provide a complete parallel campaign or durable report history. > - The Runner also needed current native OpenCode and OpenRouter qualification. > - This pull request restores the direct campaign, corrects the runtime gaps that the campaign found, and adds safe hosted Evalbook history. > - The benefit is repeatable model comparison against an immutable Runner and eval source revision. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11297 Refs #11634 What existing behavior does this improve? This improves the direct live `paperclip-runner` eval workflow, provider execution contract, and static Evalbook reporting path. Current behavior The direct evals do not have one maintained full campaign on current `master`. OpenCode has no qualified multi-model OpenRouter roster. Parallel provider bursts can compact committed events before the transport observes them. Local reports do not have a separate safe S3 history index. Proposed behavior Run one immutable roster-plus-case matrix. Use the shared paid AWS runner fleet. Keep raw artifacts access-controlled. Publish a sanitized canonical Evalbook report under the separate `runner-protocol-evals` S3 prefix. Keep immutable campaign directories plus root history, latest, and latest-green pointers. Reason and benefit Maintainers can compare native Codex, native OpenCode, ACPX, Claude Managed, and AWS AgentCore behavior over time. They can inspect failures without mixing this direct protocol layer with browser full-stack E2E. Breaking changes None. The new workflow and S3 prefix are additive. The existing Runner full-stack E2E workflow and report remain separate. ## What Changed - Added a trusted two-shard direct live workflow for up to 393 roster-plus-case cells. - Reused the numeric actor allowlist, protected paid environment, and RunsOn fleet controls from Runner full-stack E2E. - Added immutable Runner and eval revision resolution, exact credential boundaries, bounded retries, and cost ceilings. - Added a public report projection that removes sessions, transcripts, tool payloads, state, traces, raw failures, remote profile identities, and credential-shaped values. - Added additive S3 history under `runner-protocol-evals`, with immutable campaigns and mutable root index pointers. - Added native OpenCode model injection and current OpenRouter pricing contracts. - Fixed direct eval completion, workflow execution, semantic discovery, warm-attach state reset, executable binding, and event-burst handling. - Kept Runner browser full-stack E2E behavior and publication separate. - Documented local and hosted direct eval operation. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:runner-protocol-eval-publish` — 15 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner build:typescript` — passed. - `actionlint .github/workflows/runner-protocol-live-evals.yml .github/workflows/runner-full-stack-e2e.yml` — passed. - Local current matrix at the revision in [paperclip-evals#17](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/17) — 323 cells across 10 enabled configurations completed. - Final local current matrix — 269 passed, 11 behavior failures, and 43 expected macOS-only ACPX platform failures. - Targeted Runner checks — 13/13 eval-session tests, 15/15 publisher/security tests, and package typecheck passed; complete PR CI is green, including all browser E2E shards. ## Risks - Paid live campaigns can consume provider budget. Actor authorization, exact per-cell ceilings, protected environments, and explicit schedule enablement bound this risk. - Public reports can leak provider data. The workflow publishes only a separately projected report and validates every file before upload. - The new workflow cannot publish until it is present on the default branch. This pull request does not change the existing `runner-full-stack-e2e` publication path. - The campaign is large. It uses two GitHub matrices and caps combined concurrency at the shared fleet limit. > 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 on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed. The model used reasoning, code editing, browser inspection, repository tools, and live provider 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	2026-09-05 20:18:11 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	3ed5b7c5c8	refactor(server): extract the active-run output watchdog into a feature module (#12853 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server recovery service monitors active runs and applies watchdog decisions > - The watchdog rules and database operations lived in one large recovery service > - This structure made the rules harder to test and made company scoping harder to inspect > - This pull request moves the watchdog into domain, application, and adapter layers > - The benefit is a smaller recovery service, pure policy tests, and clear company-scoped ports ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The active-run output watchdog that detects silence, suppression, and terminal evidence. Current behavior The recovery service contains the watchdog policy, use cases, database operations, and process control in one file. Proposed behavior A feature module separates pure policy, use cases and ports, and Postgres and process adapters. The recovery service delegates its public watchdog methods to this module. Reason and benefit The separation makes policy decisions easy to test. Company identifiers on every reader and writer port make tenant scope clear. Smaller service methods reduce change risk. Breaking changes None. The recovery service keeps its public methods and call sites. Related public watchdog work includes [#7043](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/7043) and [#7770](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/7770). ## What Changed - Add the `server/src/modules/active-run-watchdog/` feature module with domain, application, and adapter layers. - Move watchdog policy, use cases, Postgres access, and local process control into the module. - Keep the recovery service public methods and delegate them to the module. - Add 53 pure module test cases and retain 8 Postgres integration cases. - Add company scoping and transaction rollback coverage. ## Verification - Run `vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/modules` and confirm 3 files and 53 cases pass. - Run `vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts` and confirm 1 file and 8 cases pass. - Run the full server suite in pull request CI. - Compare the type-check result with a fresh baseline on the same checkout. ## Risks The main risk is a behavior change in recovery decisions during the move across layers. The pure policy tests cover the moved rules. The integration tests cover database behavior, company scope, and transaction rollback. Pull request CI runs the full server suite. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, runtime-managed context window, tool use, code execution, and repository review support. ## 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] 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>	2026-09-05 09:15:59 -07:00
Devin Foley	bb920fb859	ci: keep the Docker build context complete and guard it on every PR (#12855 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub Actions builds the Docker images that ship Paperclip, and downstream deployments consume the `-cloud` image variant on every master merge. > - PR #12769 slimmed the Docker build context with a broad `.dockerignore` block for `packages/paperclip-runner`, and the block also removed three files the image build itself reads. > - The image build re-runs the runner's generated-file drift checks, so it found no committed capability contract in the context and failed on every master commit after the merge. > - PR CI never runs those checks against the Docker context, so the pull request stayed green and the breakage only appeared post-merge, on every image build. > - This pull request restores the three files with narrow `.dockerignore` exceptions and adds a PR CI job that runs the drift checks against the exact Docker build context. > - The benefit is that image publishing works again now, and the next context-slimming regression fails the pull request instead of every post-merge image build. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12769 (the context-slimming change that exposed this) and #12608 (which committed the generated contract outputs the image build checks). What happened? Every `Docker` workflow run on master failed from 2026-09-04 12:58Z onward, in both the `build-and-push` and `build-and-push-cloud` jobs. The failing step reported `Generated contract drift: generated/capability/capability-contract.md` from `check:capability-contract` inside `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build`. The committed contract file is current — regeneration on a full checkout is a no-op. The file was simply absent from the build context: the new `packages/paperclip-runner/*/.md` ignore rule strips the committed drift-check outputs (`generated/capability/capability-contract.md`, `generated/capability/downstream-handoff.md`), and the `packages/paperclip-runner/docs` rule also strips `docs/capability-contract.md`, which `check:capability-inventory` reads next in the chain. No cloud image published for eight hours, which stalled every downstream deployment that consumes the canary images. Expected behavior The Docker build context must contain every file the image build reads, and a change that removes one must fail the pull request that introduces it, not every image build after the merge. Steps to reproduce 1. Check out master at any commit from `af3023f1` onward. 2. Run `docker buildx build -f .github/docker-context-checks.Dockerfile .` (the probe added by this PR), or start the real `Docker` workflow build. 3. Observe `Generated contract drift: generated/capability/capability-contract.md` — while `node packages/paperclip-runner/scripts/generate-capability-contract.mjs --check` passes on the same checkout outside Docker. Paperclip version or commit `d593463ab` (master tip at diagnosis time; first failing commit `af3023f1`). Deployment mode GitHub Actions image builds (`docker.yml`), consumed by managed cloud deployments. ## What Changed - `.dockerignore`: narrow exceptions (last match wins) re-include the committed drift-check outputs (`!packages/paperclip-runner/generated/*`) and the inventory check's documentation input (`!packages/paperclip-runner/docs/capability-contract.md`). Every other exclusion from #12769 stays: no crate declares an explicit `[[test]]` target, so cargo builds without the `tests` directories, and the image build chain never runs the excluded smoke scripts. - `.github/docker-context-checks.Dockerfile` (new): a small probe that COPYs the real build context — identical `.dockerignore` semantics — and runs the dependency-independent drift checks inside it (`generate-capability-contract.mjs --check`, `check-capability-inventory.mjs`). ajv installs in an isolated directory for schema validation only; codegen checks such as `generate-protocol-schema-module` stay out because their emitted bytes vary with the ajv release and would raise false drift alarms outside the locked dependency tree. - `.github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml`: new `docker_context_integrity` job builds the probe on every full-CI pull request, and the existing `verify` aggregate now requires its result, so the guard gates merges through the same required check as the other lanes. - Activation note: `pr.yml` pins `pr-trusted.yml` by commit SHA, so the new job starts gating pull requests after the usual follow-up `ci: activate ...` pin bump once this merges. The `.dockerignore` fix needs no activation — `docker.yml` reads it directly, so image builds recover on the first master commit after this merges. ## Verification - `docker buildx build -f .github/docker-context-checks.Dockerfile .` on master (before the `.dockerignore` fix): fails with the exact production error, `Generated contract drift: generated/capability/capability-contract.md`. - Same command with the `.dockerignore` exceptions applied: passes, which also proves BuildKit honors the `!` exceptions, including the file inside the excluded `docs` directory. - `node scripts/generate-capability-contract.mjs --check` on a full checkout: passes both before and after, which confirms the committed contract was never stale — only missing from the context. - Static sweep of every script in the image build chain (`build`, `build:typescript` and their `check:` steps) against the ignore rules: the three restored files are the only build inputs the #12769 block strips. - YAML for `pr-trusted.yml` lints clean. ## Risks - Low. The `.dockerignore` exceptions only re-add three committed files to the build context; image contents do not change otherwise. - The probe job adds one context transfer and two Node scripts per full-CI pull request run (about one to two minutes, no dependency install beyond one isolated ajv package). - The `verify` aggregate now also requires the new job, mirroring the existing pattern for the other lanes; on non-full-CI runs the job skips and `verify` asserts the skip, unchanged from how the other lanes behave. - The new job only takes effect for pull requests after a follow-up pin bump in `pr.yml` (same two-step flow as every `pr-trusted.yml` change). > 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 Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, model id `claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use in Claude Code: GitHub Actions log forensics to isolate the failing check, static analysis of the build-chain scripts against the ignore rules, and local docker buildx runs to reproduce the failure and verify the fix. ## 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 (the docker probe, both failing-before and passing-after; the drift checks themselves on a full checkout) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (the probe IS the regression test for this class) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (inline comments in `.dockerignore` and the probe explain the invariant) - [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	2026-09-04 15:35:10 -07:00
Dotta	7b094724e6	fix(runner): recover native sessions across restarts (#12845 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Paperclip Runner keeps durable run and provider state outside one server process. > - A server restart can leave that runner alive or can interrupt it after a provider checkpoint. > - The old startup path used handoff intent and PID evidence, but it did not reconstruct native ownership. > - That gap could block the issue, create a replacement run, or start duplicate provider work. > - This pull request adds durable same-run recovery for coordinated and uncoordinated restarts. > - The benefit is exact recovery of the run, runner, session, provider, steering, and finalization state. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9628. That pull request added earlier local-adapter hot-restart work. This change adds native PRP authority reconstruction and same-run provider resume. Refs #10935. That pull request handles missing hot-restart snapshots. This change also supports hard restarts with no snapshot. Refs #11624. That pull request prevents unsafe retry after an adopted legacy process exits. This change reconciles native terminal evidence before provider recovery. Refs #12070. That pull request improves process liveness checks. This change also binds recovery to a process-start fingerprint and fails closed on ambiguity. What happened? The server could record hot-restart intent, but startup did not rebuild native runner ownership. A live runner could not re-register its PRP authority. A dead runner could not resume the exact native and provider session on the same heartbeat run. Generic recovery could then block the issue or create replacement work. Expected behavior A live native runner must reconnect with the same PID and logical identities. A dead runner must resume the same durable session and heartbeat run with only a new operating-system PID. A proposed or terminal result must finalize once before any provider turn starts. Ambiguous process or session evidence must stay blocked without a signal or duplicate spawn. Steps to reproduce 1. Start a Paperclip Runner heartbeat and wait for an active provider turn. 2. Restart only the Paperclip server, with or without a hot-restart marker. 3. Observe that the old startup path does not reconstruct the native control-plane authority. 4. Kill both the server and runner after a provider checkpoint. 5. Observe that the old path cannot resume the exact native session on the original heartbeat run. Paperclip version or commit The defect was reproduced from commit `1991f31fd53e7f7794d5c2e4b93be384ade2b41d`. This branch is rebased onto the current `master`. Deployment mode Local development and self-hosted server deployments that use the local Paperclip Runner. ## What Changed - Added correlated hot-restart requests and version-compatible native handoff fields. - Added controller boot identity, process-start identity, controller generation, recovery state, request id, and bounded history to the native finalization ledger. - Added transactional recovery claims for live-runner reattach, dead-runner resume, and incomplete bootstrap. - Added fail-closed ownership takeover rules and process identity validation. - Added live runner adoption to the local runner transport without a duplicate spawn. - Added same-run provider checkpoint resume and legacy retry-row compatibility. - Reconciled proposed and terminal results before runner or provider recovery. - Bound the HTTP and PRP listener before startup recovery and delayed scheduling and generic reapers until classification completes. - Added restart-aware health diagnostics, run-log recovery transitions, durable runner diagnostics, and bounded shutdown finalizer draining. - Moved restart-survivable diagnostics into runner-owned, pre-redacted bounded writes; raw stdout and stderr are never persisted. - Added process-start fencing for controller, runner, and provider PIDs; startup classifies every candidate without an implicit cap. - Added crash-recoverable, contention-safe development restart-request coordination and failed-startup listener cleanup. - Added a credential-free real-process restart suite for eight restart, scale, and identity scenarios. - Documented native restart operation, persistence, diagnostics, and verification. ## Verification - The documented native restart commands passed. They ran eight real-process/database recovery scenarios and the live runner adoption transport test. - Native executor tests passed: 111 tests. - Heartbeat recovery tests passed: 124 tests. - Hot restart, health, and shutdown tests passed: 52 tests. - The broader affected server suite passed: 350 tests. - Focused native recovery and startup tests passed: 49 tests. - Runner transport and control-plane tests passed: 63 tests. - Runner-owned diagnostic tests passed for write-time bounding, credential redaction, private file modes, and raw stream non-persistence. - Development restart coordination tests passed: 11 tests. - Database migration checks and the partial-application/replay regression test passed. - Server, database, and Paperclip Runner typechecks passed. - `git diff --check` passed. - Full Paperclip PR CI passed, including build, canary, all five general server shards, all five serialized server shards, all three browser E2E shards, workspace suites, and release-registry verification. - Greptile completed at 5/5 with no outstanding findings, recommendations, follow-ups, or open review threads. ## Risks - Moderate risk. This changes startup ordering and ownership transfer for active native runs. - The migration adds nullable columns and does not rewrite existing rows. - Recovery fails closed when process or durable session identity is incomplete or contradictory. - The first implementation supports the local Paperclip Runner. Remote targets keep their existing behavior. - The real-process suite covers cleanup and asserts that no runner or provider process survives each test. > 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 with GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a more specific model revision or context-window size. Repository editing, shell execution, database tests, and real-process test execution were enabled. ## 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	2026-09-04 15:03:53 -05:00
Dotta	4ef6155aae	ci: harden paid runner browser and lock repair (#12829 ) ## Thinking Path Paid cells now reuse the AWS image's system Chrome, but Playwright video recording still resolves its revision-pinned FFmpeg helper from the Playwright cache. Run 33875618534 proved Chrome qualification succeeds and then failed before provider startup because that helper was absent. The same run also exposed that generic lock repair can churn unrelated package platform metadata, so the automated repair paths need resolution-only regeneration rather than lockfile-only metadata refresh. ## What Changed - install Playwright FFmpeg only on the AWS/system-Chrome path - retry the small helper installation up to three times before provider secrets are exposed - keep the GitHub-hosted Chromium fallback unchanged - bind static coverage to the exact FFmpeg step block and its pre-secret ordering - add pnpm `--resolution-only` to all four automated lock-repair paths while retaining full transitive resolution - require resolution-only repair in the shared workflow regression The actual generated lockfile correction remains bot-owned by PR #12828 and is intentionally not committed here. ## Verification - `node --test .github/scripts/tests/lockfile-refresh-workflows.test.mjs` - `actionlint -ignore SC2012` on all modified workflows - focused Prettier checks - `git diff --check` - prior run 33875618534: system Chrome 151 qualified; missing Playwright FFmpeg was the sole cell startup failure ## Risks Low. The new network operation is limited to Playwright's pinned FFmpeg payload, happens before paid credentials are exposed, and leaves the hosted-runner path unchanged. Resolution-only is still a full dependency-resolution pass, unlike lockfile-only, while avoiding unrelated current-platform metadata churn. ## Model Used GPT-5	2026-09-04 08:58:44 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f449b05bc5	feat(apps): unify permissions and action testing (#12802 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for companies that use AI agents. > - Apps give humans and agents controlled access to external services. > - The existing app detail flow split permissions, tests, setup, and activity across separate pages. > - The split made access rules harder to understand and made reconnect work hard to find. > - New write actions also defaulted to Ask first, which did not match the intended connection policy. > - This pull request combines permission control and action testing, removes the setup page, and moves connection activity into Audit. > - The benefit is one clear place to configure, test, reconnect, and review each app. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The installed app Permissions, Test, Setup, and Activity views. Subsystem affected Cross-cutting. This change updates the React UI, shared app defaults, server permission behavior, tests, smoke scripts, and connection documentation. Current behavior App access and action testing use separate pages. The app detail view also links to a setup page after installation. Connection activity uses a separate tab. New write actions default to Ask first. Proposed behavior Permissions uses the connection access language from the initial flow. It includes searchable Read and Write sections, a three-state permission control, and a Test dialog for each action. Reconnect appears below a Needs attention header on Permissions and Review. Old Setup and Test links redirect to Permissions. Old Activity links redirect to the filtered company Audit feed. New write actions default to Allowed. Reason and benefit A person can understand and test app access without moving between several pages. Reconnect work stays visible where the person reviews the connection. Audit events use one consistent feed and filter model. New connections have the intended default policy. Breaking changes The Setup, Test, and app Activity tabs are removed. Existing deep links redirect to their replacement pages. Existing saved action permissions do not change. Only defaults for new write actions change. Additional context This builds on the managed app connection work in #12728. A search found no duplicate open pull request or issue. ## What Changed - Combined action testing with Permissions. - Added searchable Read and Write action groups. - Added Off, Ask first, and Allowed controls with tooltips. - Added an action Test dialog with agent selection, arguments, and formatted results. - Removed the installed-app Setup and Activity tabs. - Added reconnect guidance to Permissions and Review when a connection needs attention. - Routed connection activity into the company Audit feed and preserved the Apps & tools filter in streamlined Audit. - Moved connection removal to the Connectors-page management menu. - Made new write actions default to Allowed across connection creation paths. - Updated regression tests, browser suites, smoke scripts, and connection documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/generic-mcp-connection.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts ui/src/components/AppConnectionSidebar.test.tsx ui/src/pages/apps/AppDetail.test.tsx ui/src/pages/apps/AppNotConnected.test.tsx ui/src/pages/apps/AppsConnect.test.tsx ui/src/pages/apps/Browse.test.tsx ui/src/pages/apps/Connections.test.tsx ui/src/pages/apps/composio-services.test.ts ui/src/pages/audit/AuditFeed.test.tsx ui/src/pages/tools/PasteConfigTab.test.tsx` (517 tests passed) - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/apps/app-detail/TestPanel.test.tsx ui/src/pages/audit/AuditHub.test.tsx ui/src/pages/audit/AuditFeed.test.tsx ui/src/pages/apps/AppDetail.test.tsx ui/src/pages/apps/Browse.test.tsx` (96 tests passed) - Targeted Playwright verification for connection removal, rename on Permissions, inline action testing, and Smoke Lab Audit evidence (5 flows passed) - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm test:run` completed with 5,755 passing tests and 20 unrelated macOS harness failures. The failures use `/tmp` versus `/private/tmp`, invalid ports above 65535, and workspace fixtures outside this change. ## Risks - Low migration risk. This change has no database migration. - Old app-detail URLs depend on redirect compatibility. - New connections grant write actions by default. Finalization remains configure-authorized and audited, Ask first and Off remain available per action, and existing connections keep their saved policy. > 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, exact model ID `gpt-5`. The client does not expose the context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser verification. ## 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>	2026-09-03 21:23:26 -05:00
github-actions[bot]Dotta Codex lockfile-bot	fa16f88d6b	chore(lockfile): refresh pnpm-lock.yaml (#12771 ) Use full dependency resolution in automated lockfile repair paths, add regression coverage, and refresh the stale Rollup snapshot. Co-Authored-By: Dotta <cryppadotta@users.noreply.github.com> Co-Authored-By: Codex <codex@openai.com> Co-Authored-By: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-09-03 11:08:34 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	87d05e194b	feat(work-products): add rich cards and run artifact inventory (#12717 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies. > - Agent outputs must remain visible after a run and easy to inspect from a task. > - The thread and artifact inventory need one consistent rich-card vocabulary. > - Run uploads also need durable artifact registration and producing-run context. > - Reviewers need deterministic examples for each rich-card kind and state. > - This pull request adds the shared presentation, registration, inventory, and Storybook review coverage. > - The benefit is a complete output path that reviewers can inspect without seeded data. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? This change improves work-product presentation in task threads and the task Artifacts tab. Subsystem affected The change affects shared work-product contracts, the runner diff path, server attachment and work-product services, GitHub metadata refresh, the React board UI, and Storybook. Current behavior The thread used generic cards. Some files uploaded by a run existed only as message attachments. The Artifacts tab showed a flat list without run context or filters. Storybook showed only one resting card per kind. Proposed behavior The thread uses rich cards for supported work-product types. Each run-produced file registers one attachment-backed artifact work product. The Artifacts tab groups outputs by run and supports filters. Storybook shows every kind and requested state, PR lifecycle states, stats variants, truncation, mobile layout, and message-tail media. Reason and benefit Users can identify outputs quickly. Reviewers can inspect all card permutations without creating task data. Breaking changes None. The metadata fields and automatic artifact registration are additive. Existing attachments and work products keep their current behavior. ## What Changed - Added a shared rich work-product card with kind-specific content and a compact inventory variant. - Added pull-request and commit diff metadata plus bounded GitHub state refresh. - Added media strips and typed file chips to message-tail attachments. - Registered each run-produced attachment as an artifact work product in the same server transaction. - Grouped task artifacts by run with agent and timestamp headings. - Added type and run filters, image thumbnails, compact cards, and a company Artifacts link. - Added a Storybook kind-by-state matrix with stats variants for all eight visual kinds. - Added PR open, draft, merged, and closed examples, long-title truncation, an exact 375-pixel viewport, and message-tail overflow coverage. - Closed reconciled runtime work products when the linked runtime stops or disappears, so the card shows `Stopped` instead of `Unhealthy`. ### Screenshots Before: one resting card per kind. ![Previous rich-card inventory](https://pages.paperclip.ing/rich-work-product-storybook-20260902/before-inventory.png) After: the kind and state matrix. ![Rich-card kind and state matrix](https://pages.paperclip.ing/rich-work-product-storybook-20260902/after-kind-state-matrix.png) After: message-tail media at 375 pixels. ![Message-tail thumbnails and typed chips](https://pages.paperclip.ing/rich-work-product-storybook-20260902/after-message-tail.png) [Open the Storybook evidence viewer](https://pages.paperclip.ing/rich-work-product-storybook-20260902/). The earlier artifact inventory comparison remains available in the [artifact inventory viewer](https://pages.paperclip.ing/rich-artifacts-inventory-proof-20260902/). ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - `pnpm build-storybook` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/work-product-runtime-reconciliation.test.ts` passed with 5 tests. - Chromium visual checks passed at desktop and 375-pixel widths. - All 30 latest-head GitHub checks passed. One unrelated annotation test was flaky and passed on its single retry. - Greptile passed at 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. ## Risks - Low risk. The Storybook change adds review fixtures only. The runtime fix changes read-time reconciliation without database writes. - The matrix is intentionally large so every permutation stays visible in one review surface. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This work does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 and GPT-5.6-sol across this pull request. Reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. The context-window size is 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 public branch name describes the change and contains no internal task id - [x] I have run tests locally and the changed-path tests 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 - [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>	2026-09-02 15:27:54 -05:00
Dotta	5716fe907e	test(runner): add full-stack acceptance and eval gates (#12700 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner subsystem executes agent work across local and managed provider backends. > - The lower pull requests restore the task runtime, provider backends, and managed-provider control plane. > - The restored system needs repeatable full-stack checks before it can ship safely. > - Paid live checks also need clear access, cost, and secret controls. > - This pull request adds acceptance, live evaluation, chaos, and release gates for the restored runner stack. > - The benefit is measurable runner parity with safer release decisions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting. This change covers runner tests, release workflows, server contracts, and evaluation tools. Problem or motivation The runner stack did not have one complete acceptance surface for native Codex, ACPX, Claude Managed, and AWS AgentCore. Release checks could miss provider drift, task-view regressions, cost-policy errors, and destructive cleanup errors. Proposed solution Add a 57-cell full-stack catalog, a Daytona image, and opt-in paid workflows. Add live evaluation, chaos, cost-limit, redaction, and release contract checks. Add AWS AgentCore infrastructure and guarded provisioning tools. Keep the native runner experimental flag off by default. Alternatives considered We considered manual smoke tests only. They do not give repeatable evidence and they do not protect release branches. We also considered one large pull request. The stacked pull requests keep each review below the Greptile file limit. Roadmap alignment This work supports the shipped Cloud / Sandbox agents milestone and the shipped Agent evals & feedback milestone in `ROADMAP.md`. Related stack: - #12699 adds managed provider backends and lifecycle support. - #12691 adds qualified OpenCode and ACPX provider backends. - #12685 restores task runtime rendering and steering. ## What Changed - Add the runner full-stack harness with 57 catalog cells and 60 unit tests. - Add a Daytona runner image with digest-pinned base images and base-aware image-content checks. - Add guarded live evaluation and chaos workflows with a fixed 40-execution matrix; live and full-stack paid schedules now run only on Sundays or by manual dispatch. - Add in-flight reported-usage cost stops, post-turn cost caps, exact-threshold failure classification, secret redaction, retry classification, and actor authorization. - Reattach stream and hard-budget listeners before restart-recovery continuations so restored paid sessions cannot bypass in-flight interruption. - Preserve OpenCode usage and cost across tool-loop messages and turns while exposing an explicit current-run delta to durable accounting. - Keep PNG/WebM evidence in access-controlled artifacts only, reject SVG, and publish only pruned inert structured per-attempt evidence. - Add AWS AgentCore infrastructure, provisioning checks, and smoke tools; reject unsafe model identifiers, require exact stack ownership markers, and make failed-stack replacement explicit. - Add evaluation-session contracts and capability reports. - Add release workflow checks for immutable action pins, frozen dependency installs, exact weekly cron shape, paid-run guards, provider-secret isolation, and chaos test paths. - Reauthorize the original and triggering numeric actor IDs as the first step of every provider-secret job, including partial reruns, before checkout or provider access. - Give each full-stack matrix cell only its matching provider credential, expose Daytona only to Daytona cells, and disable shared dependency caches anywhere paid credentials or OIDC write access are present. - Protect the legacy manual E2E workflow with the same default-branch, allowlist, environment, and per-job authorization boundary. - Rotate live-eval candidates by week and retain 120 days of compatible history so the seven-week trend window remains viable. - Restore the root runner-acceptance commands and reconcile reported snapshots, raw receipts, and terminal usage without double counting or losing late usage. - Mark ACPX token deltas exact only when every budget field is present, keep cumulative cost/request authority separate, reject non-USD cost labeling, and include thought tokens in output-token budgets. - Keep `enableNativeRunner` off by default. The acceptance harness enables it only in its isolated test instance. ## Verification Passed locally: - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck` - `pnpm test:runner-acceptance:typecheck` - `pnpm test:runner-acceptance` (19 tests) - focused OpenCode proxy, driver, runnerd transport, live-session, and turn-stream tests (106 tests) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner exec vitest run src/live/clean-room-server.test.ts` (22 tests) - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit` (62 tests) - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:runner-workflow-evals` (22 tests) - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `node --test packages/paperclip-runner/scripts/aws-agentcore-provisioning.test.mjs` (6 tests) - `git diff --check` - `cargo test --manifest-path packages/paperclip-runner/runner/Cargo.toml -p paperclip-runner-core --lib --locked` (161 tests) - focused ACPX provider-event tests (10 tests) - The rebased PR changes 92 files. `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged. I did not run paid live provider jobs or provision AWS resources. Those checks need credentials and can create cost. ## Risks The paid workflows can create provider cost. They require an allowlisted original and triggering actor, the protected `runner-e2e-paid` environment, explicit opt-in variables, and cost limits. The four provider credentials exist only in that master-only environment, which requires allowlisted reviewer approval and disables administrator bypass; repository and organization Actions scopes contain no copies. Provider usage arrives after a billable request, so the live guard cannot prevent one request from crossing a threshold. It interrupts immediately on the first reported threshold hit and permits no continuation. Visual evidence can contain secrets rendered as pixels. PNG/WebM remain only in access-controlled workflow artifacts; SVG and per-attempt XML are excluded, and S3/Pages receive a pruned structured dashboard. The AWS scripts can create cloud resources. They use explicit commands, least-privilege roles, KMS encryption, saved nonsecret metadata, and explicit teardown. This pull request does not enable the experimental native runner for existing instances. > 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 with GPT-5. The model used extended reasoning, tool use, code execution, and parallel subagents. ## 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	2026-09-02 08:55:08 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	dda4dff645	fix(onboarding): restore browser launch and gate canaries (#12667 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The onboarding command starts the local server and opens the first-run wizard. > - Interactive onboarding stopped opening the browser by default. > - Organization creation could also succeed in the API while the wizard stayed on the name step. > - The npm canary workflow did not prove that the published package could complete this path. > - This pull request repairs the startup and organization transitions and adds an exact-version canary smoke gate. > - The benefit is a quickstart that works for users and is tested after each canary publish. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #12557 covers a separate final-route onboarding handoff. What happened? Interactive `paperclipai onboard` runs did not open the onboarding page. The organization API request could succeed while a same-company context update caused the wizard to stay on the organization step. The canary release lane did not test the exact published npm package through this path. Expected behavior Interactive onboarding must open the browser once. A successful organization request must advance to the first-agent step when the surrounding context adopts the same organization. Each published canary must install in a clean environment and reach the model connection step. Steps to reproduce 1. Run `npx paperclipai@canary onboard --data-dir "$(mktemp -d /tmp/paperclip-canary.XXXXXX)"` in an interactive terminal. 2. Enter an organization name while the company context refreshes from the create response. 3. Observe that the browser does not open or that the wizard can remain on the organization step after the API creates it. 4. Inspect the canary release lane and observe that no post-publish onboarding test runs against the exact npm version. Paperclip version or commit The issue reproduced with `2026.901.0-canary.8` and the source state before this pull request. Deployment mode Local trusted quickstart with embedded PostgreSQL. The install source can be npm or a source checkout. ## What Changed - Open the browser once for interactive foreground onboarding. - Preserve explicit browser opt-outs and restore the prior environment value after startup. - Accept a same-company context update after organization creation and reject a different-company takeover with an explicit error. - Export the exact canary version from the publish job. - Install and test that exact npm version in a clean Playwright smoke job through the "Connect a model" step. - Upload server logs, traces, screenshots, and the Playwright report when the canary smoke fails. - Document the interactive default and headless opt-outs. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts ui/src/components/OnboardingWizard.step.test.tsx --reporter=dot` passes with 37 tests. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` passes with 9 tests. - `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/onboarding.spec.ts` passes with 2 tests. - `PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=2026.901.0-canary.8 pnpm run test:canary-onboarding-smoke` passes against the published npm package. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - A fresh interactive source run opens the browser and reaches "Connect a model" after organization and agent naming. ## Risks - Low risk. Automatic browser opening only applies to interactive foreground onboarding. - `PAPERCLIP_NO_BROWSER=1` and `PAPERCLIP_OPEN_ON_LISTEN=false` keep headless runs silent. - A different organization context still blocks the pending create transition. - The canary package is immutable before the smoke runs. A smoke failure leaves the package published but makes the release workflow red. - This change does not modify REST APIs, database schemas, or shared data types. > 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 runtime does not expose the exact deployment snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, browser automation, repository tools, shell commands, code editing, 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>	2026-09-01 10:10:30 -05:00
Dotta	51ad751e0b	feat(runner): integrate Codex native execution (#12616 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane for teams of AI agents. > - Agent runs currently use direct adapters and their established finalization paths. > - The new runner package needs one production integration before it can execute a real provider through the server. > - That integration must not change direct adapters or expose unsupported providers. > - The rollout must also preserve native runs that were already recorded when the feature flag changes. > - This pull request adds a default-off, Codex-only native execution path and its authority boundary. > - The benefit is a recoverable production vertical slice with explicit compatibility guards. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting server orchestration and adapter selection. Problem or motivation The runner package exists, but the server cannot yet start and recover a governed Codex run through it. A careless integration could also route existing direct adapters into the native runtime or lose cancellation and finalization state. Proposed solution Add a hidden `paperclip_runner` adapter for Codex. Keep it behind the default-off instance flag. Bind native execution, resume, cancellation, semantic tool authority, and finalization to the recorded company, issue, run, and coordinator identities. Leave every direct adapter on its existing path. Alternatives considered A multi-provider launch was rejected because only Codex has the complete production bridge in this series. Replacing direct adapter execution was rejected because the runner remains experimental. Roadmap alignment This work supports governed tool access, action attribution, and self-healing runs. It keeps the integration narrow and default-off. ## What Changed - Add the Codex-only native session executor and persisted resumption path. - Add run-scoped semantic tool projection, authorization, receipts, and idempotency. - Add audited native cancellation with durable issue and coordinator binding. - Add result fencing so a recorded result cannot reacquire the provider and run twice. - Reject fresh runner starts when the rollout flag is off while preserving recorded native recovery. - Keep direct adapters outside native status, cancellation, record creation, and finalization. - Add focused conformance, recovery, cancellation, status, portability, and compatibility coverage. ## Verification - GitHub Actions is the authoritative test environment for this large stack. - The PR policy and lightweight stack checks run while this is a middle PR. - The full required suite runs when this PR becomes the lowest unmerged or top PR. - Greptile will review this exact delta after the branch is pushed. ## Risks - The main risk is routing a legacy adapter into native execution. Runtime selection and heartbeat tests cover that boundary. - The next risk is stale or cross-company cancellation. Durable binding checks and transactional audit persistence cover it. - The adapter remains hidden and default-off. Only Codex is admitted. - There are no database migration, lockfile, or GitHub workflow changes in this PR. ## Stack 1. [Runner package, SDK, and developer tools](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12608) 2. This PR: Codex production server integration 3. [Provider-neutral task-thread UI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12617) ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, extended reasoning, repository tools, and parallel review agents. ## 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	2026-08-31 22:51:17 -05:00
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	2026-08-31 21:33:11 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	39eafad47d	test(e2e): shorten and split Smoke Lab coverage (#12506 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses browser tests to protect critical operator flows. > - The trusted pull request workflow runs the E2E catalog on three existing runners. > - Smoke Lab was one 168-second spec, so the shard scheduler could not divide it. > - The spec also repeated service-start calls, page loads, and full-page screenshots. > - This pull request removes that repeated work and divides the scenario catalog into two independent specs. > - The benefit is a shorter Smoke Lab run and a balanced E2E lane without more AWS capacity. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #10629 What existing behavior does this improve? This improves the trusted pull request E2E lane and its Smoke Lab Playwright coverage. Current behavior Smoke Lab is one indivisible 168-second CI spec. It starts services for every scenario, loads the same evidence page twice, and captures a full-page success screenshot for all 56 lifecycle steps. Proposed behavior Start Smoke Lab services once per spec. Keep the per-scenario fixture reset. Capture one representative success screenshot per scenario and keep every failure screenshot. Run P1–P4 and P5–P7 as separate specs so the existing duration-aware scheduler can put them on different runners. Reason and benefit The optimized lifecycle reduced local Smoke Lab wall time from 57.68 seconds to 37.04 seconds. This is a 35.8% reduction. The two halves also let the existing three runners target about 125, 124, and 124 seconds of recorded spec work instead of about 168, 125, and 124 seconds. Breaking changes None. The same seven scenarios and eight lifecycle steps still run. The result API still records every step. Successful non-connect steps no longer attach redundant screenshots. ## What Changed - Reused one Smoke Lab service start within each spec while retaining isolated fixture installation for every scenario. - Removed the duplicate catalog evidence navigation. - Reduced success screenshots from 56 to 7 while retaining screenshots for every failed step. - Split the shared lifecycle runner into P1–P4 and P5–P7 specs. - Mark each successful split result as partial and keep dashboard health amber until one run covers the full catalog. - Updated the duration manifest and contributor docs for the split. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on Node.js 24.20.0. - `pnpm build` passed on Node.js 24.20.0. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` passed 9 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/tools/smoke-lab-matrix.test.ts` passed 8 tests. - Both split specs passed together on Node.js 24.20.0 after the review fixes: 2 passed in 35.7 seconds; shell wall time was 36.86 seconds. - The pre-change Smoke Lab baseline passed with a 57.68-second shell wall time. The optimized unsplit A/B run passed with a 37.04-second shell wall time. - The full local E2E catalog passed 44 tests and skipped 2 tests. One existing `pipelines-tutorial-flow.spec.ts` assertion failed again when run alone. - The broad local unit run reproduced failures in untouched workspace-runtime suites. Typecheck, build, shard tests, and all changed browser coverage pass. CI remains the authoritative full-suite result. ## Risks - The split duration weights use the measured local reduction and the previous 168-second CI weight. They should be refreshed after two real pull request runs. - Service state is shared within each half. Fixture installation still runs before every scenario to reset connection, policy, and catalog state. - Each half records passed execution with partial coverage. Dashboard health recognizes the partial flag and stays amber because no single runner covers the full catalog. A failed half still records failed/red. - Fewer success screenshots reduce redundant artifacts. Every scenario keeps its connect screenshot, and every failure still captures evidence. > 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. The exact deployment ID and context window are not exposed in this session. The model used agentic reasoning, code editing, shell execution, browser testing, and GitHub tools. ## 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>	2026-08-31 10:15:39 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	a34c615cc1	fix(release): skip lifecycle scripts for bundle staging (#12585 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The release system builds the workspace before it prepares npm packages. > - Bundled packages then move the built files and runtime dependencies into a standalone staging directory. > - npm pack and npm publish still run package lifecycle scripts in that directory. > - The server `prepack` script requires the source workspace and cannot run from the standalone directory. > - This pull request disables lifecycle scripts only for npm operations on prepared bundled packages. > - The benefit is that release packaging uses the artifacts that the release already built. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12584 What happened? The canary dry run passed bundled dependency installation and then failed while it packed `@paperclipai/server`. npm ran the server `prepack` script in the standalone staging directory. That script called `pnpm run prepare:ui-dist && pnpm run build`, which requires files from the source workspace. See the [failed canary dry-run job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/33399041712/job/99510762364). Expected behavior Bundled package packing and publishing must use the artifacts that the release already built. They must not run workspace-only package lifecycle scripts from the standalone staging directory. Steps to reproduce 1. Build the Paperclip workspace. 2. Prepare the bundled server package in a temporary directory. 3. Run npm pack from that directory. 4. Observe that npm runs the server `prepack` script outside the source workspace. Paperclip version or commit `08af15bd7629790a618e8787c11490c96a1b619a` ## What Changed - Add `--ignore-scripts` to npm pack for prepared bundled packages. - Add `--ignore-scripts` to both normal and no-provenance npm publish attempts for prepared bundled packages. - Update release helper tests to require this behavior. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/acpx-patch-packaging.test.mjs scripts/release-lib.test.mjs` (22 passed) - `pnpm test:release-registry` (98 passed) - `git diff --check` - The full test suite and build were not run locally. GitHub runs the canary dry run and full matrix. ## Risks - Low risk. The flag applies only to bundled packages that the release prepares after the workspace build. - Normal pnpm package publishing is unchanged. - Package lifecycle scripts remain in the published manifest. > 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 with `gpt-5.6-sol`. The model used agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The context window size is not exposed in 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>	2026-08-31 09:14:08 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	08af15bd76	fix(release): omit dev dependencies from bundle staging (#12584 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The release system publishes the server package with selected runtime dependencies inside its tarball. > - The staging step writes a temporary package manifest before it runs npm install. > - That manifest kept private development dependencies that npm still tried to resolve with `--omit=dev`. > - The canary release then stopped because the matching private runner version was not published yet. > - This pull request removes development dependencies from only the temporary install manifest. > - The benefit is that bundled package staging installs only the runtime dependencies that the tarball includes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12582 What happened? The canary release failed while it prepared `@paperclipai/server`. npm tried to resolve `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner@2026.831.0-canary.8` from the temporary staging manifest. The runner package was not published at that version, so npm returned `ETARGET`. See the [failed release job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/33395418107/job/99504474818). Expected behavior Bundled package staging must install only dependencies that the published tarball bundles. Private development dependencies must not affect the staging install. Steps to reproduce 1. Prepare a bundled package with a public bundled runtime dependency. 2. Add an unpublished package version to `devDependencies`. 3. Run `scripts/prepare-bundled-package.mjs`. 4. Observe that npm resolves the development dependency even when the command uses `--omit=dev`. Paperclip version or commit `5a988df600ebda30e446496862bf83c76d6d53d6` ## What Changed - Remove `devDependencies` from the temporary manifest used for bundled package installation. - Keep the final publish manifest unchanged. - Add unit and staging regression checks for the unpublished development dependency case. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `node --test scripts/acpx-patch-packaging.test.mjs` (12 passed) - `pnpm test:release-registry` (98 passed) - `git diff --check` - The full test suite and build were not run. This change has focused release-packaging coverage. ## Risks - Low risk. The change affects only the temporary manifest used to install bundled runtime dependencies. - The script restores the complete publish manifest before it creates the package tarball. > 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 with `gpt-5.6-sol`. The model used agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The context window size is not exposed in 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 - [ ] 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>	2026-08-31 08:52:40 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	8610e7934e	fix(release): bundle vendored runner ACPX runtime (#12582 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app that people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The npm release includes the Paperclip server and a vendored runner. > - The vendored runner imports ACPX when it starts a Codex agent. > - The server package did not include the ACPX version that the runner needs. > - A fresh canary install therefore stopped with `ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND` after onboarding. > - This pull request bundles the patched ACPX runtime with the server package. > - The benefit is that a fresh npm install can load the vendored runner. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this bug. A GitHub search found no duplicate or related pull request. What happened? A fresh `npx paperclipai@canary onboard` command completed onboarding. The server then failed to start. Node could not resolve `acpx` from the vendored Paperclip runner. Expected behavior The server should start after onboarding from a fresh npm cache and a temporary data directory. Steps to reproduce 1. Run `npx paperclipai@canary onboard --data-dir "$(mktemp -d /tmp/paperclip-canary.XXXXXX)"`. 2. Select Quickstart. 3. Start Paperclip. 4. Observe `ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND` for `acpx`. Paperclip version or commit `paperclipai@2026.831.0-canary.6` Deployment mode Other: local trusted Quickstart through `npx`. Installation method npm through `npx`. Agent adapter(s) involved Codex. Database mode Embedded PGlite. Access context Board operator during onboarding. Node.js version Node.js 26.4.0. Operating system macOS. Relevant logs or output ```shell Cannot find package 'acpx' imported from .../node_modules/@paperclipai/server/dist/vendor/paperclip-runner/drivers/acpx/codex-runtime-adapter.js ``` Relevant config (if applicable) No custom configuration was required. Additional context The published adapter utilities contain a nested `acpx@0.12.0`. Node cannot resolve that nested package from the sibling vendored runner. Installing `acpx@0.13.1` at the clean package root makes the failing runner import succeed. Privacy checklist The log excerpt contains no user path, token, company name, or other private value. ## What Changed - Added `acpx@0.13.1` as a bundled server runtime dependency. - Added a version-specific patch check for the ACPX versions used by the server and adapter utilities. - Added release-package coverage for the server ACPX bundle. ## Verification - `pnpm test:release-registry` passed 98 tests. - `node --test scripts/acpx-patch-packaging.test.mjs` passed 12 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/server-package-build-script.test.ts` passed 4 tests. - `node --test scripts/release-package-map.test.mjs` passed 12 tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - A clean extracted server tarball contained the patched `acpx@0.13.1` runtime. - The previously failing vendored runner module imported from that clean tarball. - The repository-wide test suite was stopped before completion at the maintainer's request because it takes too long for this urgent packaging fix. ## Risks - Risk is low. - The server tarball grows because it now contains ACPX and its production dependencies. - The release stager now uses a version-specific marker to verify the ACPX patch. > 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 with `gpt-5.6-sol`. - The model used reasoning mode, tool use, and code execution. - The context window size was not disclosed. ## 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>	2026-08-31 08:08:27 -05:00
Dotta	9ca24bba3c	feat(runner): pin the Codex ACPX runtime (#12400 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The package-local host boundary is ready for a concrete ACP implementation, but the first production profile is Codex only. > - ACPX must not inherit the server process environment or choose an executable by pathname after admission. > - Codex must not re-enable ambient apps, memory, skills, MCP configuration, or instructions inside its isolated home. > - This pull request pins only the two required production packages and applies narrowly tested host patches. > - The benefit is a minimal dependency boundary that follows the repository's CI-owned lockfile process. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Agent or provider Codex through `acpx@0.13.1` and `@agentclientprotocol/codex-acp@1.6.2`. Why this adapter is useful The injected runtime host needs a concrete ACP session manager and the exact reviewed Codex ACP server. Upstream ACPX does not yet expose a host-owned spawn callback, and upstream Codex ACP does not yet apply Paperclip's isolated instruction, MCP, app, memory, and skill boundary. Both behaviors are required before the dependency can execute inside the runner. How the agent is invoked The next pull request will adapt these pinned packages to the private runtime host. ACPX receives a host-owned callback that consumes the already verified executable lease. Codex receives only the isolated environment, explicit base instructions, explicit MCP servers, and the skills rooted in its private `CODEX_HOME`. This pull request alone does not spawn either package or register an adapter. Additional context This pull request is stacked on #12399. It adds no Pi, Claude, AWS, SDK, lab, browser, or UI dependency. It intentionally does not commit `pnpm-lock.yaml`: the repository policy job regenerates a manifest-only PR lockfile artifact for downstream frozen installs, and the lockfile bot updates master separately. ## What Changed - Pin `acpx` to `0.13.1` and the Codex ACP server to `1.6.2` in the runner package. - Register both patches in the pnpm 9 root configuration and newer-pnpm workspace configuration. - Preserve the existing embedded-Postgres and ACPX 0.12 patch entries used by other packages. - Patch ACPX to evaluate an allowlisted environment at child-spawn time and keep spawn cwd out of provider-visible session identity. - Patch ACPX to accept a host-owned spawn callback with the resolved arguments and options, allowing the verified command lease to own execution. - Patch Codex ACP to retain runner-owned MCP server identity in permission requests. - Patch Codex ACP to pass explicit Paperclip base instructions on both start and resume. - In isolated mode, disable ambient apps, memory, and existing MCP configuration; load skills only from `CODEX_HOME`; and configure only requested servers. - Add a package contract test that enforces exact versions, Codex-only dependency scope, both pnpm patch registries, and every required patch hook. ## Verification - Both patch files dry-apply successfully to fresh published tarballs for `acpx@0.13.1` and `@agentclientprotocol/codex-acp@1.6.2`. - A local no-lockfile install applied both patches; their runtime markers and exact installed versions were inspected. - Runner TypeScript typecheck — passed against the patched packages. - Runner package tests — passed: 16 Node protocol/package tests and 426 Vitest tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all applicable workspaces. - `pnpm build` — passed, including runner binary, server, UI, and workspace packages. - `git diff --check` — passed. - The diff contains 6 files and does not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`, a GitHub workflow, server selection, or UI behavior. ## Risks The primary risk is drift between published package contents and checked-in compiled patches. Exact versions are pinned, both patches are exercised by package-contract gates, and CI performs the authoritative regenerated-lockfile frozen install. The spawn callback does not grant a new executable path: the following adapter must consume the opaque verified command lease. Codex isolation changes activate only when `PAPERCLIP_ACPX_ISOLATED_CONTEXT=1`, so existing direct Codex adapters are unaffected. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 and repository tool use. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked an existing public item or described the issue in this 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 task identifier - [x] I have run the affected tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have documented the dependency, patch, isolation, and lockfile boundaries - [ ] All applicable GitHub Actions are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with every actionable comment resolved - [x] I will address all review findings before requesting merge	2026-08-30 18:11:25 -05:00
Dotta	a560b48d6d	feat(apps): refine Postman and Shopify setup (#12357 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Apps give those agents governed access to external tools. > - Provider catalogs must match each provider's current protocol and credential contract. > - Postman method labels and API-key placement were outdated. > - Shopify now offers a UCP commerce endpoint that needs a managed agent-profile argument. > - This pull request updates both providers and documents the complete connection-authoring workflow. > - The benefit is accurate setup, safer runtime defaults, and a repeatable provider review process. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 10 of 11. It depends on stack 9 and preserves the final catalog work recovered from #11965. Related: #5904 covers Shopify skill routing. This pull request covers the Apps connection contract instead. ## What Changed - Update Postman hosted MCP methods, capability choices, default selection, and bearer-token placement. - Add Shopify UCP commerce and Storefront compatibility methods with public-store prerequisites. - Inject the reviewed Shopify UCP agent profile at runtime and remove that managed field from user input schemas. - Classify Shopify checkout completion and cancellation as destructive actions. - Expand the connection authoring runbook from provider research through verification and pull request handoff. - Add focused shared, server, and UI coverage. - Make the approved-execution waiter phase-aware so slow preparation cannot consume the provider execution timeout and grace period. - Settle legacy pre-execute-on-approve requests and invocations as failed, clear their stale idempotency key, and allow a fresh governed approval instead of leaving work stuck in `executing`. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts ui/src/pages/apps/AppsConnect.test.tsx -t "Postman\|Shopify\|normalizeConnectionMethodConfig\|classifyRisk"` (16 passed) - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/approved-execution-wait.test.ts` (4 passed) - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway.test.ts -t "enforces policy, approvals, retries, rate limits, and company boundaries for connected remote MCP calls"` (1 passed) - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway-service.test.ts` (21 passed; includes legacy approval settlement and fresh-approval recovery) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - Shopify UCP calls now include a Paperclip-managed agent profile that overrides caller input at the same path. - Postman EU credentials now use the hosted MCP server's bearer-token contract instead of the general REST API header. - The catalog generator and checked-in definitions change together to prevent regeneration drift. - Approved execution preparation has an explicit two-minute bound; provider execution retains its own 65-second timeout and persistence grace starting from durable provider start. - Legacy approvals created before execute-on-approve are intentionally terminalized and must be requested again under the current signed contract. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This provider update does not duplicate planned core work. The related open Shopify PR addresses skill routing, not Apps connections. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime exact model ID and context window were not exposed. The model 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 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	2026-08-29 12:08:35 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	fcb2e99e8f	feat(apps): expand the self-serve connection catalog (#12344 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A useful app store needs accurate and selectable provider definitions. > - Local brand assets now cover the expanded provider set. > - Provider methods differ in transport, authentication, ownership, and required scope. > - This pull request expands the catalog and encodes those provider contracts. > - The benefit is a larger self-serve store with explicit setup choices. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 6 of 11. It depends on stack 5 and replaces another reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add and update provider definitions for the self-serve catalog. - Add Google Workspace connection methods and capability profiles. - Add catalog generation, ingestion, URL matching, and contract tests. - Update legacy key tests to use a provider that still uses header credentials. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` - Result: 164 tests passed. - `pnpm build` ## Risks - An incorrect provider definition can offer the wrong setup method. - Contract tests verify transport, authentication, and provider URL behavior. - The change does not add a database migration. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model 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 `Refs #` or (b) described the issue in this pull request - [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 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>	2026-08-29 12:08:34 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	6244e4cf32	feat(apps): add Composio and Gmail connectors (#12342 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - App connections need both direct providers and managed provider hubs. > - The grant layer now defines safe credential ownership. > - Composio needs parent and child connection lifecycle rules, and Gmail needs governed setup. > - This pull request adds both connector families on the grant foundation. > - The benefit is broader app access without weakening credential isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 4 of 11. It depends on stack 3 and replaces another reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add Composio parent and child connection support. - Add Gmail connection setup and governance. - Preserve credential paths and remove duplicate binding declarations. - Cascade Composio pause and restore actions to child connections. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` - Result: 164 tests passed. - `pnpm build` ## Risks - Parent lifecycle changes can affect every Composio child. - The service restores only children whose provider accounts remain active. - Credential binding paths are normalized before secret resolution. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model 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 - [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>	2026-08-29 12:08:33 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	b51112798f	feat(apps): improve gateway and workspace connection UX (#12340 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - App connections must work in both the operator UI and agent tool gateway. > - The first stack layer adds secure remote connections. > - Operators still need clear setup, test, and recovery states. > - This pull request adds the gateway behavior and the workspace connection experience. > - The benefit is a connection flow that is easier to understand and recover. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 2 of 11. It depends on stack 1 and replaces another reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Improve remote tool gateway connection behavior. - Add clearer app setup, test, and recovery states. - Add focused server and UI tests for the new paths. - Keep the diff isolated from later identity and catalog work. - Stabilize DNS-pinned remote HTTP protocol fixtures and the managed-runtime public-origin fixture for this independently tested layer. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` (150 passed) - `pnpm test:run` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - Gateway errors now surface through new user-facing states. - A stale connection can require a new setup attempt. - The change does not add a database migration. - The injected HTTP transport and public URL are test-only fixtures; production DNS pinning and runtime behavior are unchanged. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model 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 - [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>	2026-08-29 12:08:32 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	cabc9146d0	feat(apps): add secure remote MCP and PostHog setup (#12339 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Apps give those agents governed access to external tools. > - Remote MCP setup needs secure endpoint validation and durable credentials. > - PostHog needs both browser sign-in and personal API key setup paths. > - This pull request adds the shared remote MCP foundation and the PostHog definition. > - The benefit is a secure and reusable base for later app connection work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 1 of 11. It replaces the first reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add guarded remote MCP setup and credential handling. - Add PostHog OAuth and API key connection methods. - Add focused server, shared contract, and UI coverage. - Keep the migration replay-safe and idempotent. - Give the late-close security regression the same 10-second CI headroom as the adjacent real-timer handshake test. - Synchronize fake-timer handshake tests at the exact ensure-session boundary so real filesystem setup cannot race the fake deadline. - Drive PTY overflow coverage only after listener registration so scheduling cannot reorder the test fixture. ## Verification - pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-worker-manager.test.ts (220 passed; affected cases also passed five focused stress repetitions) - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts -t "never leaks a sandbox-provided value from a late close rejection into logs or the result"` (1 passed) - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts -t "never promotes a late ensureSession resolution\|closes a late-resolving real handle exactly once"` (2 passed) - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - Remote endpoint validation can reject configurations that previously passed without checks. - OAuth configuration errors can block setup until the operator corrects the provider settings. - The migration uses guarded statements so repeated execution is safe. - The test-only synchronization changes do not affect runtime behavior; they remove filesystem/fake-clock and listener-registration races observed under parallel CI load. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model 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 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>	2026-08-29 12:08:32 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	39b8ee2960	ci: optimize checks for stacked pull requests (#12507 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses GitHub Actions to protect changes before they enter `master`. > - GitHub evaluates every pull request in a native stack against the stack base. > - The current workflow therefore starts the complete CI matrix for every layer in a stack. > - A large stack can queue many copies of the same integrated verification and delay every pull request. > - GitHub provides stack position and base metadata so workflows can select merge-relevant layers. > - This pull request keeps policy and required check names on every layer, but runs full CI only for ordinary pull requests, the top layer, and the lowest unmerged layer. > - The benefit is much lower CI load without weakening the required-check contract. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The trusted pull request workflow currently runs every test, build, canary, and E2E lane for every pull request in a native stack. Subsystem affected GitHub Actions pull request verification. Current behavior A stack with 61 pull requests can start 61 complete CI matrices after a cascading rebase. Proposed behavior Run the always-on policy job and stable required-check aggregators for every layer. Run the complete verification matrix only for ordinary pull requests, the top stack layer, and the lowest unmerged stack layer. Reason and benefit The top layer verifies the integrated stack. The lowest unmerged layer verifies the current merge candidate. Middle layers keep branch-protection checks without consuming the complete runner matrix. Breaking changes Middle stack layers no longer run the complete CI matrix. Their `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` checks still require the policy job to pass and require every expensive lane to be intentionally skipped. ## What Changed - Add a fail-safe stack scope decision to the trusted PR runner gate. - Run typecheck, general tests, build, serialized tests, canary, and E2E shards only for ordinary, top, and lowest-unmerged pull requests. - Preserve the required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` names on every layer. - Make the required aggregators distinguish valid middle-layer skips from failures or missing scope decisions. - Add regression coverage for ordinary, top, bottom, middle, and malformed stack metadata. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` — 11 tests passed. - `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml` — passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. - The caller remains pinned to the current trusted workflow. A separate activation change must advance the immutable SHA after this pull request lands. ## Risks - Incorrect stack classification could skip important jobs. Missing or malformed stack metadata defaults to full CI. - Middle-layer required checks depend on the policy job and verify that all expensive jobs have the `skipped` result. - The reusable workflow change does not become active until the immutable caller SHA advances in a separate change. > 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 with GPT-5. The exact deployment suffix and context window are not exposed. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, Git, and GitHub API 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 - [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>	2026-08-29 10:26:38 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	a20a4944ec	feat: add Grok device login to the sandbox login panel (#12469 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip uses adapters to connect agents and model providers to its control plane > - The sandbox login panel supports displayed-code login for selected adapters > - Grok users need the same login path and a private credential home for later runs > - This pull request adds Grok support to the shared device-login path and preserves the existing Codex path > - The benefit is one secure login flow for both adapters with company-scoped credential storage ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Agent or provider Grok Local needs displayed-code login support in the sandbox login panel. Why this adapter is useful This change lets users sign in to Grok from the sandbox login panel. It also gives later Grok runs access to the stored credential. How the agent is invoked The Grok local adapter uses its login command through the shared displayed-code login flow. Later runs receive the managed home through `GROK_HOME`. Additional context The change uses adapter-scoped login lifecycle handling. It stores the credential in a company-scoped directory with mode `0700`, and it stores the credential file with mode `0600`. ## What Changed - Rename the shared device-login modules to adapter-neutral names. - Scope the shared login lifecycle to a closed adapter set. - Return the device-login URL that the provider prints. - Add the Grok prompt parser, login command, capability, and login panel entry. - Store the Grok credential in a private, company-scoped home directory. - Pass `GROK_HOME` to later Grok runs. - Add tests for the Grok adapter, the Daytona sandbox provider, the server login path, and the user interface. ## Verification - Run `pnpm vitest run packages/adapters/grok-local/src/server/adapter-auth-promotion.test.ts`. - Run the Grok adapter package suite. - Run the Daytona sandbox provider suite. - Run the server device-login suites. - Run the user interface suite. - Confirm the full CI suite passes. ## Risks The change extends shared login lifecycle code to another adapter. A regression could affect Codex login. The credential path uses explicit `chmod` calls to keep the directory at mode `0700` and the file at mode `0600`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime used tool calls and code review support. The runtime did not provide a context-window value. ## 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 - [ ] 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>	2026-08-28 21:48:34 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	64b7dce0ad	refactor(adapter-utils): replace the process-wide byte ledger with route-local byte bounds (#12465 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The adapter layer carries sandbox requests to host processes. > - The HTTP/2 bridge used one process-wide byte ledger for all routes. > - One busy route could exhaust that shared budget and move another route to file transport. > - This pull request gives each host retention site a fixed byte bound and limits concurrent HTTP/2 streams. > - The benefit is local protection: one route cannot consume the byte budget of another route. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? The HTTP/2 bridge used one aggregate byte ledger for retained bytes across all routes. A busy route could exhaust the shared budget and force an unrelated route to use file transport. Expected behavior Each route should protect its own retained bytes. A reset on one HTTP/2 stream should cancel only that stream's host forward. Steps to reproduce 1. Start the HTTP/2 bridge with multiple sandbox routes. 2. Send enough retained data through one route to reach the aggregate byte limit. 3. Send a request through a sibling route. 4. Observe that the sibling route can fall back to file transport because the first route used the shared ledger. Paperclip version or commit `47639e227e78e3c5e0dd1a3c0e2d792fe86895a3` Deployment mode Built from source with the adapter-utils and server test suites. ## What Changed - Bound each host retention site with a fixed local byte limit. - Limited concurrent live HTTP/2 streams with one built-in stream limit. - Bound each host forward and response-body read to its own HTTP/2 stream lifetime. - Removed the process-wide byte ledger, its environment override, its metrics, and its file-transport fallbacks. - Added tests for the stream limit, host body budget, and sibling-stream cancellation. ## Verification - Run `pnpm vitest run --project adapter-utils`. - Confirm that 996 adapter-utils tests pass. - Confirm that `test_live_forward_work_never_passes_the_stream_limit` passes. - Confirm that `test_the_host_body_budget_matches_the_stream_limit` passes. - Confirm that the sibling-stream cancellation test passes. - Run `pnpm tsc --noEmit`. - Confirm that all pull request checks pass. ## Risks The bridge no longer uses a process-wide byte ledger. A local bound or stream limit that is too low can reject or delay valid work. The tests cover the new limits and stream cancellation behavior. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex. Runtime model ID: GPT-5. The model used code execution and repository tools. The runtime does not expose the 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>	2026-08-28 14:36:18 -07:00
Dotta	1da6b37fc5	fix(ci): regenerate stale stacked lockfiles (#12461 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses trusted GitHub Actions workflows to verify every pull request > - Native stacked pull requests use another pull request branch as their base > - A parent layer can change a package manifest without committing `pnpm-lock.yaml` > - A child layer can inherit that manifest change without changing a manifest itself > - The current policy skips lockfile regeneration for that child and downstream frozen installs fail > - This pull request validates the complete merge tree and shares a regenerated lockfile only when needed > - The benefit is reliable stacked pull request verification without weakening the trusted workflow boundary ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A stacked child pull request inherited a package manifest change from its parent. The child did not change a manifest itself. The policy job skipped lockfile regeneration. Downstream jobs tried to restore an artifact that did not exist and then failed during frozen dependency installation. Expected behavior The policy job must validate the complete pull request merge tree. It must upload a regenerated lockfile when the checked-in lockfile is stale, including on a stacked child layer. Steps to reproduce 1. Create a parent pull request that changes `package.json` without committing `pnpm-lock.yaml`. 2. Create a child pull request on that branch without another manifest change. 3. Run the trusted pull request workflow for the child. 4. Observe that frozen dependency installation fails because no `pr-lockfile` artifact exists. Paperclip version or commit `f173ee09fa5c2ced7806bba47b54c3df853ab4df` Deployment mode GitHub Actions trusted pull request workflow. Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific. This is a core CI workflow bug. ## What Changed - Regenerate the lockfile from every checked-out merge tree. - Compare the generated lockfile with the checked-in copy before upload. - Download the artifact only when the policy job reports that it uploaded one. - Fail closed when a reported artifact is missing. - Add a workflow contract test for stacked lockfile handling. - Keep the caller pinned to the last merged trusted SHA; after this implementation merges, a separate activation PR will advance the immutable pin to its merge commit. ## Verification - `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml` - `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` ## Risks - The policy job runs one lockfile-only install for every pull request. This can add a small amount of CI time. - A missing artifact now fails immediately when the policy job reports an upload. This is intentional because it exposes workflow corruption. - No runtime or product behavior changes. - The implementation/activation split is intentional: unmerged PR-authored workflow code must never execute on trusted runners. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with model `gpt-5`, 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	2026-08-28 15:02:12 -05:00
Dotta	c916af0cc0	ci: call trusted PR workflow (#12439 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses pull request CI to validate each proposed change > - The existing workflow defines every heavy job in a PR-controlled file > - A trusted reusable workflow now contains the synchronized CI definition > - The caller must use an immutable default-branch SHA > - This pull request replaces the duplicate job list with that pinned caller > - The benefit is automatic secure runner selection without workflow drift ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12436 Refs #12438 What existing behavior does this improve? This improves how the pull request workflow selects trusted CI capacity. Subsystem affected Cross-cutting CI automation. Current behavior The active workflow contains a duplicate list of all heavy jobs. It cannot use the administrator-controlled runner gate. Proposed behavior The active workflow calls the synchronized trusted workflow at an immutable SHA. The trusted workflow selects GitHub-hosted or isolated AWS capacity from the validated contributor identity. Reason and benefit The thin caller prevents pull request changes from replacing the external-runner security gate. It also keeps runner selection automatic. Breaking changes The check names gain the reusable workflow job prefix. AWS routing remains disabled until the canary starts. ## What Changed - Replaced the duplicated heavy CI job list with one reusable-workflow call. - Pinned the call to the reviewed default-branch commit. - Limited the caller token to actions, contents, and pull request read access. ## Verification - actionlint on both workflow files - Trusted-routing tests - Confirmed the pinned SHA contains the workflow and is an ancestor of master - Full AWS and GitHub runner-boundary verification with routing disabled ## Risks The check context names change when GitHub expands the reusable workflow. The rollout verifies the new aggregate contexts before branch rules change. The repository kill switch remains off during this pull request. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, 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 a related public PR or described the issue with the matching template fields - [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 - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-08-28 11:03:28 -05:00
Devin Foley	dbf052577d	Follow the current onboarding arc in the release smoke (#12423 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A release is gated by the release smoke: it installs the published `paperclipai` artifact into a Docker container and drives the sign-in → onboarding → first-agent path with Playwright > - That suite runs only from the release pipeline, never on a pull request, so it sees the UI only after the UI has already changed > - The onboarding wizard was rebuilt into the agent arc. The "Name your organization" step, the "Start Onboarding" launcher, and the agent role picker are all gone > - The spec still waited for those, so it failed on its first assertion and blocked every nightly and beta release > - The failure was also hard to read. The workflow uploaded no container logs, because it learned the container's name only after the harness succeeded, and the harness ran the container with `--rm` and deleted it before anything read it > - This pull request rewrites the spec to follow the current arc, and repairs the log capture at both ends > - The benefit is that nightly and beta releases are unblocked, and the next failure arrives with the logs attached ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing issue. Describing it inline, following `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml`. Refs #12274 (removed the company-naming step from the wizard). Refs #12135 (the previous alignment of this spec, before #12274). Refs #12316 (open; also edits `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh`, in the bootstrap helpers rather than the container lifecycle, so the two changes do not overlap. Whichever lands second should rebase and re-run). What happened? The release smoke fails. `tests/release-smoke/docker-auth-onboarding.spec.ts` never gets past its first wait: ``` ✘ tests/release-smoke/docker-auth-onboarding.spec.ts:43:3 › Docker authenticated onboarding smoke › logs in, completes onboarding, and hires the lead agent Error: expect(locator).toBeVisible() failed — element(s) not found (timeout 20000ms) > 33 \| await expect(wizardHeading.or(startButton)).toBeVisible({ timeout: 20_000 }); ``` The spec waits for an `h3` reading "Name your organization" or a "Start Onboarding" button. Neither exists. #12274 removed the company-naming step; the string now survives only in a code comment and in `ui/src/components/OnboardingWizard.step.test.tsx`, which asserts it is absent. The steps after the first wait are stale too: the CTA on step 1 is "Continue" and not "Next", the organization input's placeholder changed, and the agent step's `#onboarding-agent-role` picker is gone, so every onboarding hire is filed under the neutral `general` role. The suite runs only from the release pipeline, so nothing on a pull request saw the drift. Both `smoke_nightly` and `smoke_beta` call the same reusable workflow, so every nightly and every beta was blocked. The failure also arrived without diagnostics. The job's "Capture Docker logs" step is `if: always()`, but it is guarded on `SMOKE_CONTAINER_NAME`, which the "Launch Docker smoke harness" step writes to `$GITHUB_ENV` only after the harness returns. On any failure before that the guard is false, the step does nothing, and the upload reports "No files were found". Below that, `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh` starts the container with `docker run -d --rm`, so the `docker stop` in its EXIT trap deletes the container and its logs together — and a container that crashes on its own is removed the instant its process exits. Expected behavior The spec walks the onboarding arc the app actually presents, and proves the company is created, the lead agent is hired, and the first task is seeded and dispatched. When the smoke fails, the run's artifact carries the container's logs. Steps to reproduce 1. Run the Release Smoke workflow against a published artifact that carries #12274, or run it locally: `PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=2026.828.0-canary.3 SMOKE_DETACH=true ./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh` 2. Run `pnpm run test:release-smoke` against that container. 3. The single spec fails at `openOnboarding()` after 20 seconds. 4. In CI, open the run's `release-smoke` artifact. It has no `docker-onboard-smoke.log`. Paperclip version or commit `2026.828.0-canary.3` (commit `8316ceb0b`). Deployment mode Docker. Installation method npm / pnpm global install (the container runs `npx paperclipai@<version>`). Node.js version v24.20.0 inside the container. Relevant logs or output ``` Running 1 test using 1 worker ✓ 1 [chromium] › tests/release-smoke/docker-auth-onboarding.spec.ts:76:3 › Docker authenticated onboarding smoke › logs in, completes onboarding, and hires the lead agent (7.0s) 1 passed (8.7s) ``` That is the result after this change. Before it, the same command failed at the first wait, as quoted above. ## What Changed - `tests/release-smoke/docker-auth-onboarding.spec.ts` now follows the current arc. It signs in, opens `/onboarding`, names the organization and presses "Continue" (which creates the company and routes straight to the agent step, because onboarding no longer asks for a mission), names the lead and presses "Next", presses "Connect" on the default adapter to hire, then presses "Get started" to launch. - The spec addresses controls by role and accessible name, or by id where one exists (`#onboarding-agent-name`). Step 1's field has no id and no associated label, so it is found as the wizard's only text box rather than by its placeholder copy. - The spec asserts the hired agent's role is `general`, which is what the arc files every onboarding hire under. Every other API assertion is unchanged. - The spec navigates to `/onboarding` explicitly and drops any saved onboarding draft first, so it can run twice against one instance. The suite retries once in CI. It still asserts that a company-less board routes sign-in into onboarding, guarded on the board actually being empty. - `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh` accepts `SMOKE_CONTAINER_NAME`, drops `--rm`, removes the container itself, and dumps `docker logs` to `SMOKE_LOG_FILE` before the teardown. - `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml` pins the container name in the job's `env`, so every `always()` step has it before anything runs. The capture step refreshes the log from a live container when there is one, keeps the harness's dump when there is not, and writes a one-line explanation when there is neither. The upload's paths are literals, and `if-no-files-found: error` makes a broken diagnostics path fail rather than warn. - `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.test.mjs` pins that wiring. It is added to `test:release-registry`, which runs on every pull request. - `doc/DOCKER.md` documents `SMOKE_CONTAINER_NAME` and `SMOKE_LOG_FILE`. ## Verification The spec was run against a real container built from the published `2026.828.0-canary.3` artifact, exactly as the workflow runs it. ```sh SMOKE_CONTAINER_NAME=release-smoke-onboard \ HOST_PORT=3232 DATA_DIR=<tmp>/smoke-data \ PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=2026.828.0-canary.3 \ SMOKE_READY_TIMEOUT_SECONDS=420 SMOKE_DETACH=true \ SMOKE_METADATA_FILE=<tmp>/release-smoke.env \ SMOKE_LOG_FILE=<tmp>/docker-onboard-smoke.log \ ./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh PAPERCLIP_RELEASE_SMOKE_BASE_URL=http://localhost:3232 \ PAPERCLIP_RELEASE_SMOKE_EMAIL=smoke-admin@paperclip.local \ PAPERCLIP_RELEASE_SMOKE_PASSWORD=paperclip-smoke-password \ PAPERCLIP_PLAYWRIGHT_CHANNEL=chrome \ pnpm run test:release-smoke ``` ``` Running 1 test using 1 worker ✓ 1 [chromium] › tests/release-smoke/docker-auth-onboarding.spec.ts:76:3 › Docker authenticated onboarding smoke › logs in, completes onboarding, and hires the lead agent (7.0s) 1 passed (8.7s) ``` The same command was run a second time against the same, now non-empty, instance. That covers the retry path, and it also passes. The log capture was verified by making the container die during startup: ```sh PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=0.0.0-no-such-version \ SMOKE_CONTAINER_NAME=release-smoke-onboard SMOKE_LOG_FILE=<tmp>/fail.log \ ./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh ``` `<tmp>/fail.log` was written and carried the cause: ``` npm error code ETARGET npm error notarget No matching version found for paperclipai@0.0.0-no-such-version. ``` The container was removed afterwards. On `master` this file is never written, because `--rm` deletes the container the moment its process exits. The workflow's capture step was run by hand against three states: a live container (258 lines), a removed container with the harness's dump already on disk (258 lines kept), and neither (a one-line explanation). Unit coverage: ```sh pnpm run test:release-registry # 93 tests, 93 pass ``` Nothing under `ui/` changed, so `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` was not required. `tests/release-smoke` is outside the TypeScript project references; Playwright compiles it at run time, which the runs above did three times. ## Risks Low risk. Nothing ships to users. The change touches one Playwright spec, one smoke script, and one workflow. Points worth a reviewer's attention: - This suite gates every nightly and beta, and it runs only post-merge. `smoke_nightly` and `smoke_beta` both call `release-smoke.yml`, and no pull request runs it. Drift between the wizard and this spec is therefore invisible until a release is already blocked, which is how this bug reached a release train. I think the arc deserves an earlier check. The cheapest version is the one added here: `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.test.mjs` runs on every pull request and pins the harness wiring. The full container smoke is too slow for the pull request path, but a UI-level test of the arc's step sequence would catch exactly this class of drift, and `ui/src/components/OnboardingWizard.step.test.tsx` is already the right home for it. I did not add it here, to keep this change to the repair. - Dropping `--rm`. The container is now removed by the script's cleanup instead of by Docker. The script already ran `docker rm -f` before starting, and the workflow's final step removes it too, so a leaked container is cleaned up on the next run either way. A developer who kills the script with `SIGKILL` will leave a stopped container behind, where previously they would not. - `if-no-files-found: error` on the upload. The capture step now always writes the log file, so the upload always has at least one path to match. If that ever stops being true, the job fails instead of warning. That is deliberate. - The spec drops the saved onboarding draft before it walks. A stale draft makes step 1 skip company creation and hire into the previous run's company. That state only exists when the spec runs twice against one instance. A fresh release-smoke container never has it. ## Model Used Claude (Anthropic), Claude Opus, 1M context, extended thinking, agentic tool use via Claude Code. The container, the Playwright runs, and the failure injection were driven as real commands on a local Docker host. ## 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	2026-08-28 07:21:08 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	7895f7f2b0	Install the declared Sentry server package into the hosted image (#12330 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip supports opt-in Sentry error monitoring for server and browser errors. > - The hosted image must include the server package when an operator sets SENTRY_DSN. > - The server package is an optional peer in the source tree, so the image did not include it. > - This pull request installs the declared server package in the hosted image and checks the result. > - The benefit is a hosted tenant can send server errors without a manual package install. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this change. What happened? The hosted image did not include the declared @sentry/node server package. A hosted tenant could set SENTRY_DSN, but the server could not load the package from the image. Expected behavior The hosted image must include the exact @sentry/node version from server/package.json. The self-hosted image must remain without this optional package. Steps to reproduce 1. Build or pull the hosted image. 2. Resolve @sentry/node from the server package path. 3. Compare its version with server/package.json. 4. Confirm that the tsx loader path still resolves. Paperclip version or commit Commit b6ff556a33ebdbe764b7f495951cd59009776608. Deployment mode Docker hosted image. ## What Changed - Add a cloud-server-deps Docker stage that installs the declared @sentry/node version in isolation. - Copy the isolated package into the cloud image without changing the production image. - Add a probe that checks the tsx loader and the resolved Sentry version. - Run the probe after the hosted image push in the Docker workflow. - Add server tests and update the observability documentation. ## Verification - Run `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/cloud-image-sentry.test.ts`. - Confirm that the changed test passes in CI. - Confirm that all pull request checks pass. - Note that the Docker workflow does not run for pull requests. It runs after a push to master, for configured tags, or after manual dispatch. ## Risks - Low risk. The production image body stays unchanged. - The cloud image adds the declared Sentry package and a small dependency tree. - The workflow probe fails if the image loses the tsx loader or resolves a different Sentry version. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5; exact model version supplied by the execution service; tool use and code execution; context window not specified. ## 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>	2026-08-27 19:10:49 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	8ed1f51f75	fix(scripts): silence pnpm DEP0169 at provisioning install call sites (#12228 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Worktree provisioning prepares the dependencies and tools that these agents need. > - The pinned pnpm version calls the deprecated `url.parse()` function during each install. > - Node.js 24 reports this call as `DeprecationWarning [DEP0169]`. > - The provisioning scripts run more than one install, so the warning repeats in each run. > - This pull request disables only `DEP0169` at each affected pnpm install call site. > - The benefit is a clear provisioning log while other deprecation warnings remain visible. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? The worktree provisioning scripts printed `DeprecationWarning [DEP0169]` during each pnpm install. The warning came from pnpm 9.15.4 and its `toNerfDart` call to `url.parse()`. Expected behavior The provisioning scripts should hide this known warning from the pinned pnpm version. They should keep other deprecation warnings visible. Steps to reproduce 1. Use Node.js 24 with pnpm 9.15.4. 2. Run worktree provisioning with a base-workspace repair or dependency install. 3. Observe the repeated `DeprecationWarning [DEP0169]` output. Paperclip version or commit Commit `5cd41b1a9996713efdfdc62373da8045664c7f30`. Deployment mode Built from source. Installation method Built from source with pnpm. Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific (core bug). Database mode Not database-related. ## What Changed - Add `--disable-warning=DEP0169` to each affected pnpm install call site. - Append the flag to `NODE_OPTIONS` so the scripts keep existing values. - Add comments that name the source of the warning and the removal condition. - Add a regression test for all affected scripts and warning codes. ## Verification - `bash -n scripts/provision-worktree.sh` passes. - `bash -n scripts/provision-worktree-runtime.sh` passes. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/provision-worktree-self-heal.test.mjs` passes with 15 tests. - GitHub Actions must pass all required checks before merge. ## Risks This change has low risk. It changes warning output only for `DEP0169`. It does not overwrite existing `NODE_OPTIONS` values. Revert commit `5cd41b1a9996713efdfdc62373da8045664c7f30` to restore the prior output. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The model used tool calls and code execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window value. ## 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>	2026-08-26 10:42:13 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	6524d2b67f	fix(dev): honor --data-dir isolation (#12193 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The development runner starts the local API, UI, and embedded PostgreSQL services. > - Developers need separate data roots when they run more than one local checkout. > - The runner forwarded `--data-dir` to a child process that did not use it. > - The migration check and server therefore continued to use the default Paperclip home. > - This pull request applies the data root before worktree setup and migration checks. > - The benefit is an isolated database and state root for each requested development run. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #7466 ## What Changed - Parse and consume `--data-dir`, `--data-dir=<path>`, and `-d` in the development runner. - Set isolated default home, config, and context paths before worktree setup and migration checks. - Keep explicit config and context paths unchanged. - Include the normalized data root in the local service identity. - Let `dev:list` and `dev:stop` select the matching isolated service registry. - Keep explicit option environments independent of ambient process instance values. - Add regression tests and development documentation. ## Verification - `PAPERCLIP_INSTANCE_ID=ambient-test-instance pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/dev-runner-options.test.ts` passes with 8 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils build` passes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - `pnpm dev:list --data-dir ./tmp/dev-service-review-fixture` selects the isolated registry. - A live run of `pnpm dev --data-dir ./tmp/data-dir-pr-smoke` became healthy on port 3101 while another checkout used port 3100. - The live run used `./tmp/data-dir-pr-smoke/instances/default/db` on a separate PostgreSQL port. - The latest-head Linux CI matrix passes, including build, typecheck, canary, all general and serialized test shards, and all e2e shards. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted on macOS. Current `master` has unrelated workspace path failures because `/tmp` resolves to `/private/tmp`. The focused regression suite passes, and the full Linux matrix is green. ## Risks - Risk is low. The change only affects development runs that pass `--data-dir` and matching service-management commands. - Explicit `PAPERCLIP_CONFIG` and `PAPERCLIP_CONTEXT` values still take priority. > 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 with `gpt-5.6-sol` produced this change. The run used tool-enabled reasoning and code execution. The runtime did not expose its 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>	2026-08-26 09:08:31 -05:00
Zannis Kalampoukisandzannis	5db8ce3c44	fix(docker): make tini PID 1 in the server image so adopted orphans are reaped (#12137 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agent runs execute inside the server container, and they spawn many short-lived descendants: git, the adapter CLI, esbuild, sh > - The server image sets `ENTRYPOINT ["docker-entrypoint.sh"]`, and that entrypoint ends in `exec`, so node becomes PID 1 > - Node reaps only the children it spawned itself. It installs no `SIGCHLD`/`waitpid` handler for orphans that the kernel re-parents onto PID 1, so those orphans stay as zombies forever > - Zombies accumulate monotonically. When the cgroup pid limit is reached, every `fork()` in the container fails and the instance is dead > - This pull request installs `tini` and makes it PID 1 in front of the existing entrypoint, adds a behavioural test that proves reaping, and adds a `pids_limit` backstop to both compose files > - The benefit is that a long-running container no longer degrades into total fork failure, and a future regression is caught by CI instead of by an outage Depends-on: none — this change is self-contained in the image build and its tests, and it touches no other in-flight branch ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this defect. It was found on a live long-running instance. Description follows the bug report template. What happened? The server container ran for 22 hours and reached 2039 of 2048 pids in its cgroup. Of 1760 processes, 1731 were zombies, and all 1731 had PID 1 as their parent. PID 1 was `node --import ./server/node_modules/tsx/dist/loader.mjs server/dist/index.js`. Zombies accrued at about 79 per hour and were never reaped. The oldest zombie was 20.8 hours old against a container uptime of 22.0 hours, so nothing had been reaped since boot. Once the pid limit was reached, `git` and `gh` failed with `pthread_create failed: Resource temporarily unavailable`. Expected behavior PID 1 reaps orphaned processes that the kernel re-parents onto it. The pid count of a long-running container stays flat instead of growing without bound. Steps to reproduce 1. Start the server image without `docker run --init` and without `init: true`. 2. Run agent work that spawns descendants which outlive their immediate parent. 3. Read `/sys/fs/cgroup/pids.current` and count processes in `Z` state over several hours. 4. The zombie count grows monotonically and every zombie has PPID 1. Relevant logs or output ``` cgroup pids.current / pids.max : 2039 / 2048 total processes : 1760 zombies : 1731 (98.4%) parent of every zombie : PID 1 (1731/1731) PID 1 cmdline : node --import .../tsx/dist/loader.mjs server/dist/index.js container uptime : 22.0 h oldest zombie : 20.8 h median: 14.4 h zombie names : git 717, claude 280, MainThread 167, sleep 141, esbuild 138, postgres 76, sh 65, sccache 50 ``` Additional context The fix pattern is already in this repository. `docker/agent-runtime/Dockerfile.base` installs `tini` and sets `ENTRYPOINT ["/usr/bin/tini", "--"]`. It was never applied to the server image. ## What Changed - `Dockerfile`: install `tini` in the `base` stage and set `ENTRYPOINT ["/usr/bin/tini", "--", "docker-entrypoint.sh"]`. The entrypoint stays in the exec chain, so UID/GID remapping, `gosu`, and graceful shutdown are unchanged. - `scripts/assert-orphan-reaping.sh` (new): a behavioural probe. It spawns a leader that forks a grandchild, exits the leader, and asserts that the orphaned grandchild leaves `Z` state instead of persisting. It fails closed if the grandchild is not re-parented onto PID 1, so a pass cannot mean the check ran too early. - `.github/workflows/docker.yml`: run that probe against the pushed image after the publish step. The publish step is multi-arch with `push: true`, so nothing is loaded into the runner daemon and the pushed tag is the only thing to test. The cloud variant is `FROM production` and inherits the same `ENTRYPOINT`. - `scripts/docker-build-test.sh`: run the same probe against a local build. - `docker/docker-compose.yml` and `docker/docker-compose.quickstart.yml`: add `pids_limit: 2048` as a backstop, so a future leak dies visibly at its own ceiling instead of starving the host of pids. - `server/src/__tests__/container-init-reaping.test.ts` (new): 13 assertions that guard the configuration the probe depends on. No per-orchestrator init lever was added. The image owning PID 1 covers compose, plain `docker run`, the quadlet units, and the ECS task definition in one place. Adding `init: true` in compose or `initProcessEnabled` on the ECS task would nest a second init around `tini`, and `tini` then warns on every boot that it is not PID 1. The new test asserts the absence of both levers across all three manifests, so the decision survives the next edit. ## Verification \| Check \| Result \| \|---\|---\| \| `scripts/assert-orphan-reaping.sh` against a real init \| Grandchild re-parented to PPID 1, then reaped. Exit 0. \| \| Same probe forced against a genuine zombie \| Reports `Z` and fails. The failure branch is not vacuous. \| \| Config guard against the pre-fix files \| Exactly the 3 relevant assertions turn red. \| \| Config guard with `tini` removed from `apt-get` but the comments kept \| Red. It checks the install, not a mention of the name. \| \| `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/container-init-reaping.test.ts` \| 13 passed \| \| `npx tsc --noEmit -p server` \| Clean \| \| `node scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs` \| PASS \| \| `node --test scripts/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` \| 8 passed \| Not verified locally: no container runtime is available in the authoring environment, so the probe has not run against a build of this image. The new `docker.yml` step runs it against the pushed image on this PR. ## Risks Low risk, but it is an image and entrypoint change, so it affects deployments. - `tini` adds one small package to the `base` stage. `docker/agent-runtime/Dockerfile.base` already installs it from the same Debian archive. - Signal handling changes shape: `tini` receives `SIGTERM` and forwards it to the entrypoint, which `exec`s node. `tini` forwards signals to its direct child by default, and the exec chain keeps node as that child, so graceful shutdown is preserved. A reviewer should confirm this on a real stop. - `pids_limit: 2048` is new for compose users. A deployment that legitimately needs more than 2048 processes would now hit the ceiling. The measured steady state on a busy instance was under 400. - If a deployment already passes `--init` or `init: true`, `tini` runs under another init and prints a warning that it is not PID 1. Reaping still works because the outer init handles it. The compose files in this repository do not set `init: true`. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), extended thinking, with tool use and code execution in an agent harness. ## 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 issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal 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 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: zannis <1011451+zannis@users.noreply.github.com>	2026-08-25 09:52:39 -07:00
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>	2026-08-25 09:31:48 -05:00
Devin Foley	0a01444514	test(release-smoke): cover the background-service leg of onboarding (#12151 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release pipeline gates each nightly and beta on a smoke suite that onboards the published npm artifact and drives the golden path > - That smoke runs onboarding inside a Docker container, and containers have no service manager, so the background-service leg of onboarding has zero automated coverage > - v2026.824.0 shipped a service install that crash-looped on a missing shim, and every smoke check stayed green (#12148 fixed the defect itself) > - This pull request adds a `smoke_service` job that runs the same published artifact directly on the runner VM's systemd and requires the installed service to end up serving > - The benefit is that a release with a broken service install can no longer pass the release smoke suite ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12148 — the fix for the defect this coverage gap let through. The gap: the release smoke runs `onboard` with `--yes` inside Docker, which both skips the service prompt and lacks systemd, so no CI job ever executed `manager.install()` against a real service manager. ## What Changed - New `scripts/service-onboard-smoke.sh`: onboards the published artifact with `--yes --install-service` on a systemd host, then fails unless the managed shim exists and is executable, `paperclipai.service` is active, and `/api/health` answers. A health response while the unit is not active also fails, because that is the signature of something other than the service serving. The script refuses to run over an existing managed install unless `SMOKE_FORCE=true`, and cleans up after itself by default so it is safe to run locally. - New `smoke_service` job in `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`: starts a user systemd session on the hosted runner (`loginctl enable-linger` + exported `XDG_RUNTIME_DIR`/`DBUS_SESSION_BUS_ADDRESS`), runs the script against `inputs.paperclip_version`, and uploads `systemctl status` + journal output as diagnostics. - No `release.yml` changes needed: `smoke_nightly` and `smoke_beta` call this reusable workflow, and a `workflow_call` result aggregates all jobs, so the new job gates nightly promotion automatically. ## Verification - `bash -n scripts/service-onboard-smoke.sh` passes and the workflow YAML parses. - End-to-end: dispatched this branch's Release Smoke workflow against the published canary that contains #12148; the `smoke_service` job onboards, installs the service, and verifies the service serves health. (Run link in PR comments.) - Negative case: the same assertions fail against v2026.824.0 — reproduced in a systemd container during the #12148 investigation: shim missing, unit in a 203/EXEC restart loop. ## Risks - Low risk to the product: no application code changes. - Pipeline risk: a flaky user-session setup on the hosted runner would block nightly promotion. Mitigated by validating the job end-to-end from this branch before merge, a 30-minute job timeout, and diagnostics uploaded on every run. - The service leg only covers systemd. launchd (macOS) still has no CI coverage; a macOS runner job is a possible follow-up. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, model ID `claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use via 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	2026-08-25 01:05:27 -07:00
Devin Foley	890ab9acfe	feat(release): thorough notes skeletons — nest each PR's summary at creation (#12124 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release workflow drafts the upcoming stable's notes skeleton the moment a beta publishes > - That skeleton was a bare list of commit subjects, so the notes only reached the shipped stable's depth after a later authoring pass during the soak > - Stable release notes are consistently verbose and thorough; the initial draft should start that way too > - This pull request nests each referenced PR's own summary under its subject line at creation time, and states the density bar in the authoring skill > - The benefit is a thorough raw document from day one of the soak, with no LLM tokens in Actions ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The `draft_stable_notes` skeleton generated at beta publish (`scripts/draft-stable-notes.sh`). Current behavior The skeleton groups bare commit subjects by conventional-commit type. All substance arrives later, when a maintainer or agent rewrites it — reviewed maintainer feedback: stable notes are a lot more verbose, and the initial beta notes should be consistent with that. Proposed behavior Each subject that references a PR carries that PR's own summary nested beneath it — the PR template's "What Changed" bullets, else the first prose lines — fetched best-effort via `gh` and skipped silently when unavailable. The release-changelog skill now states the density bar explicitly: the beta-keyed draft ships verbatim as the stable's notes and is written at the previous stable's depth from the first pass. Reason and benefit The notes author starts from a thorough raw document instead of a commit list, and beta-time notes match the verbosity the stable will ship with. ## What Changed - `scripts/draft-stable-notes.sh`: `enrich_pr` nests PR summaries under subjects; best-effort (`gh` failure or `DRAFT_NOTES_SKIP_PR_ENRICHMENT=1` degrades to today's output); pipefail-safe when a "What Changed" section has no bullets. - `.github/workflows/release.yml`: the `draft_stable_notes` step gets `GH_TOKEN` so `gh` can read PR bodies. - `.agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md`: "write at full stable depth from the first pass" guideline. - `scripts/draft-stable-notes.test.mjs`: three new tests — enrichment rendering via a fake `gh`, silent degradation without one, and the sparse-body case that previously killed the script under `set -o pipefail`. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/draft-stable-notes.test.mjs` — 11 pass. - Live run against the real repository for the current beta (`2026.818.0-beta.1`, 172 commits): exit 0, 439 nested summary lines; spot-checked entries carry the correct PRs' What Changed bullets. - `bash -n` on the script; `release.yml` re-parsed as YAML. ## Risks - Low: the publish path is untouched; enrichment is read-only `gh` calls in the post-publish draft job and degrades to the current skeleton on any failure. Roughly one API call per commit in the range (~170 today) — well inside the token's rate budget, adds a couple of minutes to a job with a 10-minute timeout. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code) ## Pre-submission 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	2026-08-24 20:51:33 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	d1573244b5	refactor: disambiguate the Telemetry and Observability data paths (#12128 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip records first-party events, OpenTelemetry data, and local run-log events > - The code and documents used one term for these three data paths > - This naming made the required review level unclear > - This pull request names each data path in the module names, documents, and code comments > - The benefit is a clear review rule without a runtime change ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Issue type Unclear or confusing. Where is the issue? `packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md`, `doc/observability.md`, `doc/run-log-events.md`, and the duplex instrumentation modules. What's wrong? The repository used Telemetry for first-party events, OpenTelemetry data, and local run-log events. This usage made the data path and review level unclear. Suggested fix Use Telemetry only for Paperclip first-party events. Use Observability for OpenTelemetry data. Use the run log for rows in `heartbeat_run_events`. Related public pull requests: #8476 and #9672. ## What Changed - Rename the duplex instrumentation modules and identifiers from `Telemetry` to `Observability`. - Move the Observability and run-log contracts out of the Telemetry README. - Add `doc/observability.md` and `doc/run-log-events.md` as the canonical documents. - Add a file-path review rule to `AGENTS.md`. - Correct the remaining code comments that name the wrong data path. - Keep all event names, payloads, database records, spans, configuration keys, environment variables, and runtime paths unchanged. ## Verification - `npx vitest run packages/shared/src/telemetry/readme-contract.test.ts` passes. - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/published-exports.test.ts` passes. - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/startup-timing.test.ts` passes with 42 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` passes. - `pnpm --filter server typecheck` passes. - The old module name does not remain in TypeScript or JSON files, except for the intentional publication guard. - CI and Greptile checks remain pending after PR creation. ## Risks - The old duplex module subpath no longer has a compatibility shim. The board accepted this intentional hard break. - The new duplex module subpath stays blocked from package publication. - The change has no runtime effect. The main risk is an incorrect document or module reference. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5`, with tool use and code review support. ## 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 with the documentation issue fields - [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>	2026-08-24 16:42:33 -07:00
Devin FoleyandClaude	0dfa0fb988	ci: refresh general-server shard duration manifest (#12075 ) <!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100). --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The PR verify workflow gates every pull request; its slowest check sets the feedback time for all contributors > - The general-server test lane splits its vitest suites across five runners with a duration-weighted partition (`scripts/general-server-shard.mjs`) > - The partition reads a duration manifest that was sampled on 2026-08-04, when the lane had 279 suites and 946s of serial time > - The lane has since grown to 405 suites and 1274s; 126 suites had no recorded duration and one suite grew from 37s to 123s > - The stale weights made the partition uneven: in the fully green actions run 32708351172, "General tests (server (2/5))" ran 364s and was the slowest check in the whole run, while sibling shards ran 292-330s > - This pull request refreshes the manifest with per-suite durations measured from that same run > - The benefit is a level five-shard split (255s ±1s of predicted suite time per shard), which removes ~50s from the slowest PR check ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Describe the current behavior In the fully green PR actions run [32708351172](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/32708351172) (2026-08-24), the check "General tests (server (2/5))" completed in 364s. Its test step ran 315s while sibling shards ran 241-276s. It was the slowest check in the run. Describe the improvement The duration manifest `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` is stale. It holds 279 suites sampled on 2026-08-04, but the lane now has 405 suites. The 126 unknown suites fall back to the median weight (~1.3s), and `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` grew from 37.4s to 123.3s. The partition therefore predicts a level split but produces an uneven one. Refreshing the manifest restores the level split without any code change. Expected impact All five server shards level at ~255s of predicted suite time (~310s job time). The slowest PR check drops from 364s to about 317s, so the PR critical path improves by roughly 50s. ## What Changed - Regenerated `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` from actions run 32708351172 (2026-08-24): 405 suites, 1274s total serial time (was 279 suites, 946s from 2026-08-04) - Updated the `$comment` field to name the new sample run and date - No code changes; the partition logic in `scripts/general-server-shard.mjs` is untouched ## Verification - Parsed all five "General tests (server (n/5))" job logs from run 32708351172 with the consecutive-completion-timestamp method described in the manifest `$comment`; asserted that the parsed suite set equals the exact file list that `run-vitest-stable.mjs` collects (405/405, no misses, no extras) - Ran `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group general-server --shard-index N --shard-count 5 --dry-run` for N=0..4 with the new manifest: each shard predicts 255s (±1s) of suite time, and the five shards form a complete, non-overlapping cover of all 405 suites - Ran `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: 13/13 pass ## Risks - Low risk. The change is data-only. Wrong weights cannot break correctness: the partition always covers every suite exactly once, so the worst case of a bad weight is an uneven shard, which is the current state. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5`, agentic coding session with tool use (Claude Code / Claude Agent SDK) ## 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 (no code change; existing partition tests pass) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (manifest `$comment` updated) - [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 Related prior work: #11528 (balanced the serialized server shards by recorded duration), #10923 (split serialized tests into five shards), #11156 (split workspaces-a into two shards). Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-24 08:54:52 -07:00
Devin Foley	633e102971	fix: verify issue-update writes instead of inferring success (#12051 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents report task state to the control plane with `PATCH /api/issues/{id}` at the end of each heartbeat > - On remote sandbox targets those writes cross a relay that can fail at the connection level > - An agent that pipes its status curl through `head` cannot see that failure; the write is lost but the run reports success > - The issue then stays `in_progress` with no disposition, and the missing-disposition recovery must repair it > - This pull request makes the issue-update helper verify every write, and it teaches the shared skill to require verified writes > - The benefit is that a lost status write becomes a visible, retried failure instead of a silent success ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this defect. The description below follows the bug report template. What happened? A sandboxed heartbeat run answered its issue in a comment. It then sent `PATCH /api/issues/{id}` with `status: done` through `curl -sf ... \| head -c 400`. The relay dropped the connection. The `-f` flag suppressed the error output, and the pipe replaced curl's exit code with the exit code of `head`. The agent saw empty output and exit 0. It reported the write as an "empty 2xx" success and exited. The issue stayed `in_progress`, and the successful-run recovery had to close it in a corrective run. Expected behavior A status write that does not reach the server must surface as a failure. The helper script must retry transient failures. It must exit non-zero when the write is unconfirmed. Skill guidance must forbid write patterns that hide failures. Steps to reproduce 1. Point `PAPERCLIP_API_URL` at an endpoint that drops connections intermittently. 2. Finalize an issue with `curl -sf -X PATCH "$PAPERCLIP_API_URL/api/issues/$ID" -d '{"status":"done"}' \| head -c 400`. 3. Observe exit code 0 with empty output while the server never received the PATCH. ## What Changed - `scripts/paperclip-issue-update.sh` now captures `%{http_code}`, retries a retryable failure (connection-level, 429, 5xx) once — two attempts total, which matches the shared bounded-write-retry rule — rejects an empty 2xx body, and confirms the response echoes the requested status before it exits 0. - Failure output states plainly that the write was NOT saved, so the calling agent reports it accurately. - `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md` Step 8 adds a required "Verify writes — never infer them" rule: a successful PATCH always returns the updated issue JSON, disposition writes must never run through `head`/`tail` pipelines, and an unconfirmed write must be reported as FAILED. - `server/src/__tests__/paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts` pins the new skill rule; a new `paperclip-issue-update-helper.test.ts` exercises the helper's behavior end-to-end. ## Verification - `bash -n scripts/paperclip-issue-update.sh` - `server/src/__tests__/paperclip-issue-update-helper.test.ts` runs the helper end-to-end against a local HTTP server: confirmed-echo success (exit 0), empty 2xx (exit 1), wrong echoed status (exit 1), 422 reject (exit 1, exactly one request), 503 then success (two requests), connection refused (two attempts, then exit 1 with a "NOT saved" report). - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/paperclip-issue-update-helper.test.ts server/src/__tests__/paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/cli-invocation-safety.test.ts` — 50 passed. ## Risks - Low risk. The success-path output is unchanged (the updated issue JSON). - The helper now exits non-zero on unconfirmed writes. Callers that previously missed silent failures now see explicit errors. That is the intended behavior change. - The single retry re-sends the PATCH after a retryable failure. If the first request committed and only its response was lost, an attached comment can post twice. The duplicate is visible and benign; the prior behavior lost the write silently. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic), model id `claude-fable-5`, extended thinking enabled, agentic tool use via Claude Code (CLI harness), 200k 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 - [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	2026-08-23 16:56:51 -07:00

1 2 3 4 5 ...