PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-22 00:30:19 +02:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	9f4a956b90	Add durable agent runtime synchronization hooks (#16499 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their runtime configuration. > - Plugins can maintain external agent computers. > - Configuration and file saves currently miss durable plugin delivery. > - A transient activity notification cannot recover after interruption. > - This pull request adds an opt-in agent runtime resource stream. > - The existing dispatcher delivers and acknowledges its committed work. > - Plugins can prepare computers when configuration changes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #15631 and #16203 establish agent lifecycle and native durable delivery. Problem Plugins cannot reliably react to agent configuration and instruction changes without polling or waiting for execution. Proposed solution Add an opt-in `agent_runtime` stream to the existing resource journal. Record changes at the database mutation and managed file audit boundaries. Wake the dispatcher with content-free commit notifications. Provide scoped runtime inputs to the selected lifecycle plugin. Alternatives considered Route-only activity events miss service and background writers. Scheduled scans delay changes and repeatedly query unchanged state. Roadmap alignment This extends the existing plugin and agent configuration work. ## What Changed - Add durable update/delete events for agent runtime state, including an existing-agent baseline. - Capture configuration changes, instruction edits, deletion, restore, and managed run writeback. - Add commit notifications and a reconnect scan. Register one listener for configured, enabled runtime subscribers. Release it when none remain. - Keep HTTP startup independent of queued plugin callbacks. - Add `ctx.agents.getRuntime`. Require lifecycle capability, invocation company, enabled plugin, and owning lifecycle selection. - Keep legacy agent/project subscriptions isolated. Manual inbox reads retain both legacy streams. - Resolve recovered instruction paths without reading or hashing bundle contents. Use the company reporting graph for runtime health. - Repair missed file events on identical save/deletion retries after a journal failure; preserve content tokens and conditional-write checks. - Correlate file audits with runtime revisions to deduplicate recorded retries without a new table. Bound the lookup with the existing company/timestamp index. - Document the contract, migration, access boundaries, and session-connection requirement. ## Verification - Rebased the full stack onto origin/master after #16507. - Final replayed stack: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. - All 132 affected runtime, skill, connector, publication, instruction, managed-agent, and delivery tests passed after the latest-master rebase. Workspace typecheck and build passed. - Journal failure injection verifies recovery on identical file writes, deletions, and instruction retries from an acknowledged inbox. - Deduplication follow-up: 80 runtime/instruction/delivery tests and server typecheck passed. Repeated retries create no audit/events; old hashes returning after an intervening commit still repair delivery. Built-in/native instruction writer regressions passed all 56 tests. - PR 1 follow-up tests cover valid/cyclic reporting chains, listener registration failure, multiple subscribers, global/company disable, re-enable, unload, and startup with blocked callbacks. - Database coverage includes rollback, journal failure, no-op suppression, file saves/deletion, ordering/replay, owner/company denial, independent-client commits, and real listener loss/reconnect. - SDK/shared suites passed 1,059 tests during implementation. CLI/delivery regressions also passed. - Migration safety, map checks, diff whitespace, and local secrets/PII scan passed. - Hosted CI and security checks are fully green at `b296405e2`. Standard Greptile and Apex both returned 5/5 with no unresolved findings. - The broad local suite encountered an unchanged diagnostic test that rejects the word "private" from an error stack. This worktree lives under /private/tmp. The same unchanged diagnostic suite passed all 108 tests in the original checkout. Hosted full-suite checks provide exact-head verification. ## Risks - Apply migration 0347 before enabling a runtime subscriber. Runtime notifications require session-level PostgreSQL LISTEN. Transaction-mode poolers are unsupported for this opt-in feature. - Database triggers share the mutation transaction. Journal failure prevents configuration commits. Trigger work adds a journal insert to relevant changes. - Filesystem publication and SQL commit are separate boundaries. Direct filesystem edits do not emit hooks. External clients must fence stale revisions and retain conditional-write checks. - The reader returns only that plugin's own instance secrets. Keep them out of UI data, logs, plugin state, and agent files. - No private transport integration or live remote computer qualification is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and testing. The exact deployment model ID and context window 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 references) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (focused suites; broad local limitation documented above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [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>	2026-10-16 07:53:04 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	7d9b93aee2	docs: establish paired feature and agent access maps (#16025 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product capabilities. > - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission boundaries. > - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared capability IDs. > - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance ownership of both maps. > - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product behavior or permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288 added the original feature map. Issue type Missing documentation and maintenance contract. Where is the issue? The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the verification skills. What's wrong? There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points, permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it. Suggested fix Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the maintenance skill. ## What Changed - Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion links. - Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths, policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`. - Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence, agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately. Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability operation-reviewed. - Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the shared contract. - Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency. - Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI, runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171 matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve. - Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests. Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed verification. - Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license blocks are unchanged. - Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is retained. - Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and contains only this contract change. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - The companions are representative source baselines. They are not complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys. - The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context. - External links to the old product-map directory may need updates. Repository references have been updated. - Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This contract does not change authority or implement missing paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits, shell commands, and structural regression 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 - [ ] 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>	2026-10-12 14:52:28 -05:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

Nicky LeachandPaperclip

9f4a956b90

Add durable agent runtime synchronization hooks (#16499 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages agents and their runtime configuration.
> - Plugins can maintain external agent computers.
> - Configuration and file saves currently miss durable plugin delivery.
> - A transient activity notification cannot recover after interruption.
> - This pull request adds an opt-in agent runtime resource stream.
> - The existing dispatcher delivers and acknowledges its committed
work.
> - Plugins can prepare computers when configuration changes.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Related: #15631 and #16203 establish agent lifecycle and native durable
delivery.

**Problem**

Plugins cannot reliably react to agent configuration and instruction
changes without polling or waiting for execution.

**Proposed solution**

Add an opt-in `agent_runtime` stream to the existing resource journal.
Record changes at the database mutation and managed file audit
boundaries. Wake the dispatcher with content-free commit notifications.
Provide scoped runtime inputs to the selected lifecycle plugin.

**Alternatives considered**

Route-only activity events miss service and background writers.
Scheduled scans delay changes and repeatedly query unchanged state.

**Roadmap alignment**

This extends the existing plugin and agent configuration work.

## What Changed

- Add durable update/delete events for agent runtime state, including an
existing-agent baseline.
- Capture configuration changes, instruction edits, deletion, restore,
and managed run writeback.
- Add commit notifications and a reconnect scan. Register one listener
for configured, enabled runtime subscribers. Release it when none
remain.
- Keep HTTP startup independent of queued plugin callbacks.
- Add `ctx.agents.getRuntime`. Require lifecycle capability, invocation
company, enabled plugin, and owning lifecycle selection.
- Keep legacy agent/project subscriptions isolated. Manual inbox reads
retain both legacy streams.
- Resolve recovered instruction paths without reading or hashing bundle
contents. Use the company reporting graph for runtime health.
- Repair missed file events on identical save/deletion retries after a
journal failure; preserve content tokens and conditional-write checks.
- Correlate file audits with runtime revisions to deduplicate recorded
retries without a new table. Bound the lookup with the existing
company/timestamp index.
- Document the contract, migration, access boundaries, and
session-connection requirement.

## Verification

- Rebased the full stack onto origin/master after #16507.
- Final replayed stack: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed.
- All 132 affected runtime, skill, connector, publication, instruction,
managed-agent, and delivery tests passed after the latest-master rebase.
Workspace typecheck and build passed.
- Journal failure injection verifies recovery on identical file writes,
deletions, and instruction retries from an acknowledged inbox.
- Deduplication follow-up: 80 runtime/instruction/delivery tests and
server typecheck passed. Repeated retries create no audit/events; old
hashes returning after an intervening commit still repair delivery.
Built-in/native instruction writer regressions passed all 56 tests.
- PR 1 follow-up tests cover valid/cyclic reporting chains, listener
registration failure, multiple subscribers, global/company disable,
re-enable, unload, and startup with blocked callbacks.
- Database coverage includes rollback, journal failure, no-op
suppression, file saves/deletion, ordering/replay, owner/company denial,
independent-client commits, and real listener loss/reconnect.
- SDK/shared suites passed 1,059 tests during implementation.
CLI/delivery regressions also passed.
- Migration safety, map checks, diff whitespace, and local secrets/PII
scan passed.
- Hosted CI and security checks are fully green at `b296405e2`. Standard
Greptile and Apex both returned 5/5 with no unresolved findings.
- The broad local suite encountered an unchanged diagnostic test that
rejects the word "private" from an error stack. This worktree lives
under /private/tmp. The same unchanged diagnostic suite passed all 108
tests in the original checkout. Hosted full-suite checks provide
exact-head verification.

## Risks

- Apply migration 0347 before enabling a runtime subscriber. Runtime
notifications require session-level PostgreSQL LISTEN. Transaction-mode
poolers are unsupported for this opt-in feature.
- Database triggers share the mutation transaction. Journal failure
prevents configuration commits. Trigger work adds a journal insert to
relevant changes.
- Filesystem publication and SQL commit are separate boundaries. Direct
filesystem edits do not emit hooks. External clients must fence stale
revisions and retain conditional-write checks.
- The reader returns only that plugin's own instance secrets. Keep them
out of UI data, logs, plugin state, and agent files.
- No private transport integration or live remote computer qualification
is included.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code
execution, and testing. The exact deployment model ID and context window
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 references)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (focused suites; broad
local limitation documented above)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [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>

2026-10-16 07:53:04 -07:00

DottaandPaperclip

7d9b93aee2

docs: establish paired feature and agent access maps (#16025 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product
capabilities.
> - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission
boundaries.
> - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared
capability IDs.
> - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance
ownership of both maps.
> - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product
behavior or permissions.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated
the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288
added the original feature map.

**Issue type**

Missing documentation and maintenance contract.

**Where is the issue?**

The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the
verification skills.

**What's wrong?**

There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points,
permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does
not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it.

**Suggested fix**

Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse
capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from
operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the
maintenance skill.

## What Changed

- Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its
recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion
links.
- Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching
capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths,
policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries
as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`.
- Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence,
agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately.
Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability
operation-reviewed.
- Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and
inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update
creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the
shared contract.
- Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching
areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path
examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency.
- Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation
policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI,
runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes.

## Verification

- Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171
matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve.
- Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests.
Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken
references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API
examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed
verification.
- Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill
and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license
blocks are unchanged.
- Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only
in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte
unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is
retained.
- Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and
contains only this contract change.
- Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for
this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access
was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the
structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are
pending.

## Risks

- The companions are representative source baselines. They are not
complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys.
- The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool
admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance
must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context.
- External links to the old product-map directory may need updates.
Repository references have been updated.
- Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This
contract does not change authority or implement missing paths.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does
not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size,
or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits,
shell commands, and structural regression 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
- [ ] 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>

2026-10-12 14:52:28 -05:00