PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-23 00:53:38 +02:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Dotta	ee2a190626	Unify Paperclip Runner experimental controls (#12666 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Runner is an experimental execution adapter. > - The adapter and its required sandbox ingress had separate settings. > - A user could enable one setting and still have an unusable runner configuration. > - The runtime already makes one durable native or legacy decision for each run. > - This pull request uses that runtime decision for ingress authorization. > - The benefit is one clear opt-in with safe recovery for existing native runs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? This improves the experimental settings and transport authorization for Paperclip Runner. Subsystem affected Cross-cutting. This change affects the React settings UI, shared settings contracts, adapter utilities, and server runtime selection. Current behavior Settings shows separate Paperclip Runner and Runner Preview Ingress controls. A user can enable the runner but leave required sandbox ingress disabled. Proposed behavior Settings shows only Paperclip Runner. Its native runtime decision also authorizes provider WebSocket ingress when the execution target requires it. A persisted native run keeps its recovery transport after the setting is disabled. Reason and benefit Paperclip Runner is one experimental capability. One opt-in removes an invalid partial configuration and makes the rollout boundary easier to understand. Breaking changes The Runner Preview Ingress card is removed. The old `enableRunnerPreviewIngress` key remains accepted in stored settings and managed configuration, but it has no server runtime effect. The public adapter-utils input remains compatible through a deprecated alias. Additional context Refs: #12638, #12641, #12656. ## What Changed - Removed the separate Runner Preview Ingress card from Experimental Settings. - Made resolved native runtime selection authorize required provider ingress. - Preserved ingress recovery for persisted native runs after the rollout flag is disabled. - Kept the old settings key and adapter-utils input as deprecated compatibility contracts. - Added focused UI, runtime policy, transport, stored-settings, and managed-config regression tests. - Updated deployment documentation and feature descriptions. ## Verification - GitHub Actions will run typecheck, tests, build, policy, and browser shards. - Focused tests cover the single settings control, runtime authorization, fail-closed transport selection, the deprecated public input, and old managed configuration. - No local tests were run, per the maintainer request to use GitHub Actions for verification. - `git diff --check` passes. ## Risks Low to moderate risk. The effective ingress gate changes from a separate stored flag to the resolved native run decision. Fresh runs still require `enableNativeRunner`. Persisted native runs remain recoverable. Legacy adapters never receive ingress authorization. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with 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 - [ ] 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	2026-09-01 09:21:23 -05:00
Dotta	0a422fda52	feat(runner): add remote execution substrate (#12638 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Runner gives native runs a durable and governed execution path. > - The current native path runs on the control-plane host. > - Remote environments need an authenticated execution-target contract. > - The contract must not change direct adapters or enable new runtimes by default. > - This pull request adds the remote execution substrate and Daytona ingress. > - The benefit is a bounded base for later remote runner transport work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12616. Refs #12352. Subsystem affected Cross-cutting. This change touches runner transport, server orchestration, plugin contracts, and shared settings. Problem or motivation Native execution cannot resolve an authenticated runner ingress through a remote environment. The server also lacks one provider-neutral contract for remote execution targets. Proposed solution Add a default-off runner preview ingress capability. Add transport-neutral runner connectivity. Add remote execution target and lifecycle handling. Add a Daytona ingress implementation with redacted credentials. Alternatives considered A provider-specific server path would duplicate orchestration and authorization. A public endpoint without an environment contract would weaken the trust boundary. Roadmap alignment This work supports the Cloud and Sandbox agents milestone. It also supports self-healing runs and governed tool access. ## What Changed - Added execution-target traits for local, SSH, and sandbox environments. - Added plugin RPC contracts for runner ingress endpoints. - Added authenticated Daytona preview ingress. - Added transport-neutral PRP outbound connections. - Added remote runner artifact verification and fail-closed provider selection. - Added bounded native session resume, cancellation, and lifecycle recovery. - Preserved Codex-only selection for fresh experimental runner starts. - Preserved all direct adapter execution and finalization paths. - Removed stale Pi provider-pack requirements that security review rejected. - Kept the rollout controls off by default. - Did not change pnpm-lock.yaml, Cargo, database migrations, or GitHub workflows. ## Verification - GitHub Actions will run the repository test, typecheck, build, security, and policy gates. - Focused tests cover ingress validation, redaction, execution targets, remote lifecycle, cancellation, resume, and legacy adapter selection. - Local tests were not run. The requested verification policy uses GitHub Actions for this series. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passes. - The diff contains 52 files. ## Risks - Remote execution crosses a trust boundary. - The implementation validates target capabilities, artifact digests, provider-pack pins, and connection metadata. - The feature remains default-off. - Fresh native selection remains Codex-only. - Existing direct adapters remain on the legacy path. - This PR does not yet make remote Codex runnable. The next PR adds the Rust WSS and TLS transport. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6. The work used high-reasoning agent mode, repository tools, GitHub tools, and parallel code-audit 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 or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [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	2026-09-01 01:29:06 -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

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

Dotta

ee2a190626

Unify Paperclip Runner experimental controls (#12666 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip Runner is an experimental execution adapter.
> - The adapter and its required sandbox ingress had separate settings.
> - A user could enable one setting and still have an unusable runner
configuration.
> - The runtime already makes one durable native or legacy decision for
each run.
> - This pull request uses that runtime decision for ingress
authorization.
> - The benefit is one clear opt-in with safe recovery for existing
native runs.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

This improves the experimental settings and transport authorization for
Paperclip Runner.

**Subsystem affected**

Cross-cutting. This change affects the React settings UI, shared
settings contracts, adapter utilities, and server runtime selection.

**Current behavior**

Settings shows separate Paperclip Runner and Runner Preview Ingress
controls. A user can enable the runner but leave required sandbox
ingress disabled.

**Proposed behavior**

Settings shows only Paperclip Runner. Its native runtime decision also
authorizes provider WebSocket ingress when the execution target requires
it. A persisted native run keeps its recovery transport after the
setting is disabled.

**Reason and benefit**

Paperclip Runner is one experimental capability. One opt-in removes an
invalid partial configuration and makes the rollout boundary easier to
understand.

**Breaking changes**

The Runner Preview Ingress card is removed. The old
`enableRunnerPreviewIngress` key remains accepted in stored settings and
managed configuration, but it has no server runtime effect. The public
adapter-utils input remains compatible through a deprecated alias.

**Additional context**

Refs: #12638, #12641, #12656.

## What Changed

- Removed the separate Runner Preview Ingress card from Experimental
Settings.
- Made resolved native runtime selection authorize required provider
ingress.
- Preserved ingress recovery for persisted native runs after the rollout
flag is disabled.
- Kept the old settings key and adapter-utils input as deprecated
compatibility contracts.
- Added focused UI, runtime policy, transport, stored-settings, and
managed-config regression tests.
- Updated deployment documentation and feature descriptions.

## Verification

- GitHub Actions will run typecheck, tests, build, policy, and browser
shards.
- Focused tests cover the single settings control, runtime
authorization, fail-closed transport selection, the deprecated public
input, and old managed configuration.
- No local tests were run, per the maintainer request to use GitHub
Actions for verification.
- `git diff --check` passes.

## Risks

Low to moderate risk. The effective ingress gate changes from a separate
stored flag to the resolved native run decision. Fresh runs still
require `enableNativeRunner`. Persisted native runs remain recoverable.
Legacy adapters never receive ingress authorization.

> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with 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
- [ ] 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

2026-09-01 09:21:23 -05:00

Dotta

0a422fda52

feat(runner): add remote execution substrate (#12638 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip Runner gives native runs a durable and governed execution
path.
> - The current native path runs on the control-plane host.
> - Remote environments need an authenticated execution-target contract.
> - The contract must not change direct adapters or enable new runtimes
by default.
> - This pull request adds the remote execution substrate and Daytona
ingress.
> - The benefit is a bounded base for later remote runner transport
work.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #12616.
Refs #12352.

**Subsystem affected**

Cross-cutting. This change touches runner transport, server
orchestration, plugin contracts, and shared settings.

**Problem or motivation**

Native execution cannot resolve an authenticated runner ingress through
a remote environment. The server also lacks one provider-neutral
contract for remote execution targets.

**Proposed solution**

Add a default-off runner preview ingress capability. Add
transport-neutral runner connectivity. Add remote execution target and
lifecycle handling. Add a Daytona ingress implementation with redacted
credentials.

**Alternatives considered**

A provider-specific server path would duplicate orchestration and
authorization. A public endpoint without an environment contract would
weaken the trust boundary.

**Roadmap alignment**

This work supports the Cloud and Sandbox agents milestone. It also
supports self-healing runs and governed tool access.

## What Changed

- Added execution-target traits for local, SSH, and sandbox
environments.
- Added plugin RPC contracts for runner ingress endpoints.
- Added authenticated Daytona preview ingress.
- Added transport-neutral PRP outbound connections.
- Added remote runner artifact verification and fail-closed provider
selection.
- Added bounded native session resume, cancellation, and lifecycle
recovery.
- Preserved Codex-only selection for fresh experimental runner starts.
- Preserved all direct adapter execution and finalization paths.
- Removed stale Pi provider-pack requirements that security review
rejected.
- Kept the rollout controls off by default.
- Did not change pnpm-lock.yaml, Cargo, database migrations, or GitHub
workflows.

## Verification

- GitHub Actions will run the repository test, typecheck, build,
security, and policy gates.
- Focused tests cover ingress validation, redaction, execution targets,
remote lifecycle, cancellation, resume, and legacy adapter selection.
- Local tests were not run. The requested verification policy uses
GitHub Actions for this series.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passes.
- The diff contains 52 files.

## Risks

- Remote execution crosses a trust boundary.
- The implementation validates target capabilities, artifact digests,
provider-pack pins, and connection metadata.
- The feature remains default-off.
- Fresh native selection remains Codex-only.
- Existing direct adapters remain on the legacy path.
- This PR does not yet make remote Codex runnable. The next PR adds the
Rust WSS and TLS transport.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6. The work used high-reasoning agent mode,
repository tools, GitHub tools, and parallel code-audit 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 or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [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

2026-09-01 01:29:06 -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