mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-29 12:59:13 +01:00
d66e96646de7bdaa4c1e3409f7806387a97d6649
12
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
505e1a5582 |
feat(cases): add persistent workflows with same-task agent handoffs (#16959)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - An agent workflow needs persistent facts and a safe way to transfer work. > - Creating a task for each phase splits the objective, discussion, workspace, and review policy. > - A case can retain the facts while one primary task moves between agents. > - Transfers must survive process failure and preserve private access, budgets, and completion gates. > - This pull request adds durable case handoffs, native case tools, and read-only case pages. > - Prompts describe the workflow. Existing task controls decide when work can run and finish. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Prompt-driven agent teams need a persistent record that can move through triage, implementation, verification, and correction. Ordinary reassignment does not provide a durable instruction, safe release barrier, or recoverable delivery receipt for an agent handing off its own running task. **Proposed solution** Extend standalone cases with one primary task, a descriptive phase, retained access sources, and a handoff ledger. Apply assignments after source execution and workspace settlement. Deliver each transfer through the existing durable wake queue. Provide `create_case`, `read_case`, `update_case`, and `handoff_case` in the native runner. Creation requires kickoff and explicit workflow text. An explicit handoff to `done` closes the case when normal task completion is accepted. **Alternatives considered** Do not add a workflow engine, filesystem queue, configured state graph, or one task per phase. The workflow document combines transition prose with an optional Mermaid `stateDiagram-v2` map. The server does not execute the diagram. The Pipelines experiment removed on master stays removed. **Roadmap alignment** This extends Agent Reviews and Approvals, Enforced Outcomes, Bounded Run Recovery, and Activity Log attribution. Existing approval, review, budget, privacy, workspace, and responsible-user rules remain authoritative. Related work: [ordinary handoff wake recovery](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15019). This feature adds a separate persisted case-handoff receipt and release barrier. ## What Changed - Add case routing fields, retained access sources, durable handoff history, delivery leases, and replay-safe migrations. - Keep the same primary task across agent phases. Preserve each returning agent's own session and the task's workspace. - Fence outgoing mutations, wait for provider and workspace release, and recover delivery without duplicate task comments or runs. Recheck current assignment permissions as the original caller before applying a delayed transfer. Scope a run Stop to that run’s own handoff intents, so repeated old Stop requests preserve newer work. Cancelling terminal intent without a source run also requires fenced current task ownership, including native retries and preparation with an old checkout. For Cloud callers, revalidate current stack membership with an uncached Cloud RPC and derive owner elevation from the current managed setting. - Keep case reads, documents, assets, Audit, and live events inside retained task/project permissions. - Add native case creation/read/update/handoff tools. Store required workflow text and initial documents on the first task. Page oversized case facts and referenced document bodies through the dedicated tool with bounded UTF-8 JSON, current routing versions, snapshot conflicts, and current source authorization on every page. - Add read-only case lists and detail pages, task-style list controls, compact dotted field tables, linked handoff tasks, and case filters in Audit. - Add native/legacy integration tests, migration/restart tests, browser coverage, and bounded live receipt fixtures. Extend the trusted sandbox condition to cover the new subscription fixture profile. - Hide obsolete paused-agent warnings on completed or cancelled task threads. - Synchronize the company-switch settings test with React effects after a CI failure. Preserve its security assertions and production remount behavior. ## Verification The branch directly includes master `9ef434fe79`. The required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` gates pass on head `765fccd67c`. [Current-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39464348614) passes typecheck, build, tests, and all eight browser shards. Security checks pass. [Greptile gives this exact head 5/5](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16959#issuecomment-6291156549), with no unresolved review threads. The optional Paperclip Review check remains queued because its assigned agent is paused. It is not a required branch check. No check result was overridden. Local workspace typecheck and build pass after the master merge, along with database migration checks, token gates, map checks, Storybook catalog checks, and the Copilot profile identity check. Standard builds refresh Runner vendor output. Focused checks pass 2,008 API/paging/context tests and 7 strict case protocol tests. The final commit changes one test fixture only; its ten tests, UI typecheck, and token gates pass. No production source changed in that commit. On current head `765fccd67c`, all **194 critical workflow tests** executed and passed with no skipped tests in those files: - 38 Stop/ownership tests, including board completion intent, native retries, stale Stop, and preparation with an old checkout. - 2 actual legacy process/HTTP handoff tests, including scratch failure, a closed-stdio child that continues writing, and recovery through a fresh worker after the process group stops. - 5 migration tests, including SQL column metadata, preserved null authority context, and all six prior-numbering receipts. - 3 process-settlement and 5 scratch tests. - 88 handoff-service, 18 heartbeat handoff, and 21 native case-tool integration tests. - 7 bounded case/document-read projection tests and 7 strict protocol-contract tests. The current CI checkout was `fed65d49`, merging `765fccd67c` into master `9ef434fe79`. Its new document regressions reconstruct exact Unicode/escaped bodies and revisions through real native authority and authenticated HTTP with generic API tools disabled. They cover case-owned, primary-task, and linked-task documents; routing on every page; stale document snapshots; access loss and unlinking; unrelated/foreign/private sources; system documents; and quarantined content. Active-task document tools retain their existing behavior. These are current-head test results from the first CI attempt; the browser-only retry did not rerun these suites. The full `64fdd3403f` CI failed one separate settings test: after a company switch, it observed an unsettled API-key draft. The production component and test were unchanged from prior green source. Production switches remount both keyed settings layers; the test directly reused an unkeyed view and used a timer tick instead of waiting for React effects. The final commit replaces that fixture synchronization with React `act`. The exact secret-clearing assertions and all timeouts remain unchanged. The original assertion failure remains recorded; no unchanged retry was used. The narrow unchanged baseline and fixed fixture each pass 10 tests. The upstream result-paging merge preserves case capture namespaces and current asset privacy. Its API integration suite executed 39 of 41 tests successfully, with two skipped; the optional assigned-result PRP integration test was skipped. Neither skipped suite is counted in the 194 critical tests or as live provider proof. All 361 upstream migration entries and SQL bodies remain unchanged. Six case migrations follow master as 0363–0368 with identical SQL hashes. Official Drizzle generators produced the combined metadata and five retained snapshots. Generation reports no schema changes, and the snapshot drift test passes. The earlier `ce361ae5d0` CI passed on attempt 1, including its then-current 179 critical tests. Fresh review later identified unusable document references with generic API tools disabled; the bounded document reads and ten additional authenticated HTTP tests address that finding. The full local `pnpm test:run` attempt was cancelled after this Mac exhausted PostgreSQL semaphore capacity; it is **not** counted as a pass. Later database attempts also stopped before assertions or skipped, including one sandbox socket denial. Two original stale-Stop regressions did reproduce the bug against the old source. A REST serialization assertion passed after two preserved database-startup failures. No test timeout was increased. All 194 assertions listed above executed and passed in current-head CI. The complete 385-file, 3,963-test UI shard also passed after the fixture repair. A configured-provider receipt workflow passed 13 backend checks across triage → implementation → verification → correction → done, using one task and four work runs. The saved receipt is revision 2 with total 6 USD; case and task both closed. The original canonical attempt remains failed because its browser assertion confused the terminal destination with completed-task tooltips. The corrected full browser verifier passed on the same retained database and original runs, with no additional provider calls. The last clean-build browser readback is on `6a86c54a53`; later changes affect recovery, authorization, bounded reads, and settlement. Accounted work cost is a $1.010574 rate-card estimate; provider billing and setup-probe usage are unavailable. Copilot profile 49 passed the unchanged seven-fixture private protocol pack (46/46 checks, no retries) and the product file-edit canary after master's completion-replay change. All 60 bound implementation hashes remain unchanged on the current source. Historical profile-47/48 identities and results remain intact. See the [profile-49 compatibility record](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/codex/persistent-case-handoffs/doc/plans/2026-10-20-copilot-completion-recovery-compatibility-v49.json). This is bounded compatibility evidence, not a fresh full matrix, installed-package product test, or Daytona rollout. Preserved CI failures and retries: - On `20662930ac`, Slack managed setup failed a five-second success assertion after reload. Its test/application path was unchanged from a prior green head. One unchanged-source retry passed all 25 tests in that shard; no source or timeout changed. - On `9402b4f17a`, two CI workers received shutdown signals at 15:24:19 UTC. Neither log had an assertion failure before interruption. One unchanged-source retry of each passed all Runner static checks and all 32 tests in browser shard 6; both aggregates passed. The next head, `7b4374edaf`, passed all CI without retries. - On `295f289b5a`, serialized shard 9 timed out during its first device-login test, then the next test found an active login lease. Direct login/test paths were unchanged from a prior green head. Cold import plus a timed-out async body using the next test's mutable actor/store is the supported fixture-race explanation; no request trace proves that sequence. The original failure remains recorded. One unchanged-source retry passed all 294 tests in 19 files, including all 41 device-login tests. No login source or timeout changed. The subsequent `ce361ae5d0` CI passed without retries. - On `64fdd3403f`, one company-switch settings assertion observed an unsettled draft. The final test-only commit uses React `act` without changing assertions, timeouts, or production code. On `765fccd67c`, all ten settings tests and the complete 385-file, 3,963-test UI shard passed. - On `765fccd67c`, browser shard 3 completed the split-handoff assertions, then cleanup received HTTP 500 from run cancellation after a one-second PostgreSQL row-lock timeout. The extra chat run was reporting completed work while teardown began. Cleanup stopped before restoring a global experiment flag, causing a later assertion to fail. Relevant production and test paths are unchanged from an earlier green commit. Stop's lock order is consistent, and no nested self-lock was found; the exact PostgreSQL blocker was not recorded. One unchanged-shard retry passed. The original failure, trace, and downstream flag failure remain recorded. No Stop implementation, cleanup assertion, or timeout changed. The retry supports intermittent cleanup contention; it does not identify the original blocking transaction. ## Risks - Local process transfers require host-owned PID/group absence. Missing or uncertain termination evidence keeps delivery pending, independently of scratch setup. - Handoff admission and task cancellation share execution ownership. New regression tests cover temporary holds, late source writes, and uncertain provider termination. - Retained private sources use an intersection of existing permissions. This intentionally fails closed when a source is missing or an existing task cannot preserve that boundary. - Migrations add tables and indexes. They preserve master history and can replay over prior feature installs. Migration 0368 adds nullable internal authorization provenance with no default or authority backfill. Historical transfers still awaiting release without this context fail closed; an operator must cancel them and request a new handoff. - Delayed Cloud handoffs depend on the current Cloud membership RPC. An unavailable, ambiguous, expired, or mismatched response holds the handoff for retry; it does not reuse cached authority or grant access. - Bounded reads reload and reauthorize the selected projection per page. Underlying work grows with the data size and number of pages. Changed data or routing requires restarting from offset zero without the old snapshot. - Phase names and workflow diagrams remain advisory. They do not satisfy review or approval gates. - This is a large, cross-cutting PR. The maintainer requested one PR for the whole feature; the commits separate data, runtime, UI, and qualification work. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with tool use, code execution, and delegated code review. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size were not exposed in the session. Live fixture agents used the explicitly configured provider model recorded in their test evidence. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8cfedd7df8 |
fix(runner): restore task monitors and durable timed waits (#15446)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their task execution. > - Agents need a durable way to return to work after a delayed check. > - The issue monitor scheduler already provides a one-shot wake for an assignee. > - Native runners reject generic execution-policy writes and had no bound monitor tool. > - Scheduling alone is insufficient because native completion also needs to accept a timed wait. > - This pull request adds an authorized monitor tool and connects it to completion and the existing scheduler. > - An agent can now schedule its next check, end the run, and resume on the same task. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native runner could not set its own task monitor. `call_api` correctly rejected execution-policy writes, while `schedule_wake` had no production binding. `paperclip_finish` also rejected monitor waits. **Expected behavior** A standard native run can set a one-shot monitor on its current task or another accessible task assigned to the same agent. After a confirmed schedule on the current task, it can yield. The scheduler later delivers `issue_monitor_due`. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a standard native task. 2. Ask the agent to check the task again later and end its current run. 3. Inspect available tools and try the generic issue execution-policy update. 4. Observe the missing native tool and the lifecycle-write denial. Related PRs: #14680 concerns monitor notes in the shared wake prompt. #11919 changes attempt-limit scope. This PR adds native scheduling and completion authority and retains the existing cumulative attempt bounds. It does not depend on either PR. ## What Changed - Add provider-neutral `set_task_monitor` with a default current-task target, future timestamp, required notes, existing bounds, and explicit clearing. - Check company, task visibility, ownership, runtime permissions, work mode, and active-run authority. Preserve review-only restrictions. Reject the reserved server-owned quota-recovery name before saving or accepting a native wait. - Commit the monitor, audit event, and retry receipt together. Retry receipts survive a successor run without re-arming cleared or consumed timers. - Permit `paperclip_finish` to yield to a persisted monitor. Recheck ownership and the schedule when committing final disposition. Release execution without an immediate continuation. - Preserve due monitors during native execution. Fence wake admission and consumption against replacement, clearing, reassignment, and completion. Preserve unrelated review policy. - Expose scheduled and consumed monitor instructions in task context. Update provider schemas, Rust validation, generated contracts, and execution documentation. - Add an opt-in live Codex smoke script with isolated data and explicit run/session/runner/process evidence. ## Verification - Repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed after rebase. Server typecheck passed again after review fixes. All CI test shards pass on `3def77b1b`, including runner TypeScript/Rust, server, serialized server, workspace, and browser tests. All CI gates are green, including the canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 on the same commit with zero unresolved threads. - The local monolithic `pnpm test:run`, started before the rebase, was interrupted after current-head CI test coverage passed. It is not counted as a standalone full-suite pass; the focused local regression suites passed. - Targeted server tests cover scheduling, replacement, clearing, policy preservation, cumulative bounds, cross-run retries, permissions, provider-neutral discovery, review restrictions, completion authority, and scheduler/finalizer races. - Runner contract/catalog/semantic tests and Rust terminal-tool tests cover the new operation and monitor completion. - Live Codex test passed twice (latest live run on `e0bcd63e6`) in a temporary database and workspace, with a 300,000 ms warm window. First run `67bd7709-c089-4d4a-9d2b-0d6b618a34b0` yielded at `2026-10-07T13:15:03.274Z`. Second run `97c323f9-595a-4cc5-a007-db5a2fbb937c` started at `13:15:30.952Z`, received `issue_monitor_due`, and completed the same task. Exactly one monitor wake was recorded. - Both live runs used native session `7b1dd753-1c9b-4e7a-b22f-a125dbc3748c`, runner `e90d9a1b-3502-4ee3-b15e-edc024c555d4`, provider session `01a11680-6d01-70c0-9a55-db7246ed66c3`, and PID `64218` with the same process start time. This proves warm reuse for that local Codex test, not only successful scheduling. - Reproduce the paid live test with `node --import ./server/node_modules/tsx/dist/loader.mjs server/scripts/smoke-native-task-monitor.ts --run`, with the installed Codex binary on `PATH` and a valid local login. ## Risks - The scheduler now defers monitor dispatch while the task has an active native run. A stuck run still depends on the existing recovery lifecycle. - Idempotency uses the existing run ledger; no table or migration is added. - Other providers share the tested tool and completion contracts. Only Codex received a live model test. - Existing `call_api` lifecycle restrictions remain enforced. Monitor waits do not bypass task blockers, reviews, or approvals. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with tool use, code execution, and TypeScript/Rust editing. The session does not expose the exact deployed model 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> |
||
|
|
1477d1ecea |
test: remove the no-op sequential describe modifier (#15286)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip runs the server and runner test suites with Vitest. > - Vitest 5 removes the deprecated `describe.sequential` property, so the pending Vitest 5 upgrade fails the type-check and test jobs. > - `describe.sequential` only changes behaviour inside a `describe.concurrent` suite, or when `sequence.concurrent` is on. > - This repository has neither, so the modifier changed nothing at run time. > - The benefit is that the Vitest 5 upgrade can land, and the test files lose a modifier that did no work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #12969 ## What Changed - Replace every `describe.sequential` use with a plain `describe` call. - Drop the `{ concurrent: false }` suite option from the two runner test files. - Add a comment to `server/vitest.config.ts` that records why these suites must run one test at a time. - Leave the package manifests and the lockfile unchanged. ## Why the modifier did nothing The Vitest documentation states that `describe.sequential` is useful to run tests in sequence inside a `describe.concurrent` suite, or with the `--sequence.concurrent` option. `sequence.concurrent` defaults to `false`. This repository satisfies neither condition: - No test file uses `describe.concurrent`, `it.concurrent`, or `test.concurrent`. - `server/vitest.config.ts` sets `sequence.concurrent: false`, with `maxWorkers: 1`, `maxConcurrency: 1`, and `isolate: true`. - `packages/paperclip-runner/vitest.config.ts` sets no `sequence` block, so the `false` default applies. `packages/db` and `cli` already run the same embedded-Postgres suites with a plain `describe`, and those jobs are green. The server package was the only outlier. The modifier did carry one real piece of knowledge: these suites need their tests to run one at a time. The new comment in `server/vitest.config.ts` records that reason next to the setting that enforces it. ## Verification - `git grep` for `describe.sequential` returns nothing outside `node_modules`. - The author ran the changed server test files under the installed Vitest 4, and the results match the results without this change. - Two very large embedded-Postgres test files exceeded the author's local memory limit, so the CI test jobs cover those two. - The two changed runner test files have pre-existing local failures caused by a missing Rust toolchain and a missing global `pnpm` binary. The failures are identical with and without this change. - The author type-checked the changed files and found no new error. - CI must pass the typecheck, build, server test, and runner verify jobs. ## Risks - Low risk. Suite execution stays serial, because the Vitest config enforces it. - The change adds no dependency and changes no package manifest or lockfile. - A future change that turns `sequence.concurrent` on would break these suites. The new config comment warns against it. ## Model Used - Claude Sonnet 5 — code edits and local verification. - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 — the earlier revision of this branch. ## Test plan - [x] Every CI check reaches a terminal green state. A pending or queued check is not a pass. - [x] The `Typecheck + Release Registry` job passes. This change must not introduce a type error. - [x] The `Build` job passes. - [x] The server test jobs and the runner verify jobs pass. - [x] Greptile re-reviews this commit set and posts a passing verdict. The dependabot waiver does not apply to this pull request. - [x] `mergeable` reads `MERGEABLE` as a terminal 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 linked the related public issue with `Refs: #12969` - [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: Priya Raman <priya.raman@paperclip.ing> --------- Co-authored-by: Priya Raman <priya.raman@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: nickyleach <331803+nickyleach@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
eb049aebf2 |
feat(skills): let agents update company skills safely (#15049)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is an open source control plane for AI-agent companies. > - Company skills give agents reusable work instructions. > - Skill Studio can edit skill files and save version history. > - Agents can create a skill, but they do not have a first-class update tool. > - An agent update needs a version check and safe retry behavior to prevent lost edits. > - This pull request adds `update_skill` through the existing company skill file API. > - The change keeps company policy, version history, and audit records in one path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: the server API, shared validation, and runner tool catalog. **Problem or motivation** An agent can create a company skill but cannot update its `SKILL.md` through a first-class tool. An unguarded retry can also create duplicate versions or overwrite a newer edit. **Proposed solution** Add `update_skill` with a required current version ID and a retry key. Route it through the existing skill file API. Reject stale versions and changed-input retries. Save the version and audit event together. **Alternatives considered** A separate write endpoint would duplicate the Skill Studio mutation path and policy checks. This PR reuses that path instead. **Roadmap alignment** This work extends Skills Manager and Skill Studio, which are listed in `ROADMAP.md`. **Additional context** The tool accepts a complete `SKILL.md`, not a partial patch. Callers must read the current version before they edit it. ## What Changed - Add optional version and retry fields to the existing skill file update contract. - Add a guarded API update with a stable retry receipt and attributed audit event. - Add `update_skill` to native and semantic runner tool catalogs, with mode and policy gates. - Add unit, integration, protocol, and semantic-tool regression coverage. - Document agent use and extend the OpenAPI request contract. ## Verification - Focused tests and direct server and runner TypeScript checks passed before this PR. - `git diff --check` passed after the rebase onto `master`. - CI passed on the latest PR head, including the full test matrix, typecheck, and build. Local full typecheck and build stopped because `cargo` is not installed. The local full test run ended without a verdict. - No dedicated end-to-end eval scenario was added or run. The protocol coverage and semantic-tool test cover the new action deterministically. - Reviewers can read a skill version, call `update_skill`, repeat the same key, then try a stale version and a changed-input key. Only the first edit must create a new version. ## Risks - File writes and database transactions must stay in sync when a write fails. The integration tests cover failed writes and retry behavior, but CI must verify them on the PR head. - Existing Skill Studio callers do not send the new optional coordination fields. Their request shape remains valid. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI assisted with this change. The runner did not expose the exact model ID or context window. The agent used code execution and repository 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; exact model ID and context window were not exposed) - [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 tests; full suite is pending CI) - [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 (53 pass, 4 skip on the latest head) - [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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7bc03e0acd |
feat(runner): default harnesses to full auto and support task reassignment (#13686)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their work. > - Agent Chat uses native runners to save plans and coordinate tasks. > - Provider defaults differed across harnesses and could stop unattended work at a second permission gate. > - Agents also lacked a dedicated tool to move existing work to another agent safely. > - This change defaults native providers to full automatic permission for provider tools and connected tools. > - A guarded reassignment tool preserves task identity, stops the previous run, and schedules the new owner once. > - Codex and Claude chat acceptance tests now use production permission defaults. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Native runner, ACPX Claude permission policy, task authority, and Agent Chat acceptance tests. **Problem or motivation** A user can authorize an agent to save a plan or create a task, but Claude's default provider gate can still stop that action. Reassignment needs a dedicated operation that preserves context and avoids concurrent owners or unintended recovery runs. **Proposed solution** Default Claude/ACPX to `approve-all`, OpenCode to `allow`, and Codex to `never`. Apply the defaults at configuration, execution, fresh-session, resume, driver, and proxy boundaries. Keep explicit permission settings and server-side company, claim, task-mode, and approval checks. Add `reassign_task` with version checks, durable idempotency, audited cancellation, and guarded successor scheduling. **Alternatives considered** A Paperclip-only allowlist still blocks provider tools and other connections during unattended work. Full automatic permission is the requested product default. Recreating a task discards its identity and history. Updating assignment without stopping the previous run can leave two agents working on the same task. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing planning, delegated work, governed tool access, and recovery features. It adds no new service or schema migration. Recent related tasks and open PRs were checked for duplicate work. **Additional context** Related: #13678 (Agent Chat tools and recovery), #13677 (remote runner startup). The stacked legacy-adapter companion is #13693. This also fixes the deployed-server artifact fallback needed to stage the current runner binary. ## What Changed - Default Claude/ACPX to `approve-all`, OpenCode to `allow`, and Codex to `never`, including missing settings at direct driver and proxy entry points. These defaults cover provider tools and connected tools. Preserve explicitly configured restrictive modes. - Include assigned approval reads using canonical side-effect classifications, so verifying a recorded approval does not trigger another provider gate. Paperclip approval decisions still enforce controller authority. - Carry the new permission mode through server configuration, execution contracts, recovery identity, TypeScript, and Rust. Keep `approve-paperclip` as an optional restricted mode, with exact SDK rules and closed unknown requests. It is not a default. - Add `reassign_task` to the semantic catalog, controller, mock authority, and generated contracts. - Guard reassignment with company authorization, expected owner and version, protected-state checks, and durable retry receipts. - Honor explicit backlog task creation atomically with the initial plan, without scheduling a wake. Preserve backlog holds regardless of dependency readiness. - Stop active work before changing ownership. Restore the prior owner through a guarded, idempotent wake if final handoff validation fails. Keep intentional reassignment stops out of failure recovery. Preserve backlog and blocked states without waking them early. - Add authorization, concurrency, replay, stop, and permission boundary regressions. Add Codex and Claude chat reassignment cases and run native chat cases with production defaults. - Clarify shared runner guidance: save plans and Paperclip documents directly with `write_document`; create and register a local file only when a downloadable file is requested. - Document provider defaults and the operator choices for existing agents. ## Verification - Current head `d82fbb0f03546d27cecf072250e4172e0b1ee662`: **55 checks passed**, with two intentional skips. [PR checks](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13686/checks). - Greptile reviewed that exact head at **5/5**. The security reviewer acknowledged the intended full-auto default, and the acknowledged discussions are resolved. - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally after rebasing onto current master. Targeted adapter/server, runner, API, default/resume, and heartbeat configuration tests passed. - **All six real-provider acceptance cases passed on their first attempt, with cleanup passing:** plan handoff, task reassignment, and backlog creation/status, each on native Claude and Codex. Evidence records Claude's effective `approve-all` mode. [Campaign and downloadable evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35469926548). - The live campaign tested combined revision `a37881c824dcd7170380fc4b788732fc743e5da7`. The final PR heads add only a heartbeat test expectation correction; application code is unchanged from that live-tested revision. - The campaign's result-enforcement job passed. Its separate report publisher failed because the trusted workflow's `patchedDependencies` configuration differs from its frozen lockfile. All six results and screenshots remain available as GitHub artifacts. The overall manual workflow is red for this publishing failure. - Full-suite coverage is supplied by the passing CI partitions. The separate unsharded local run was stopped after the corresponding CI partitions passed; it is not counted as a completed local run. - Reassignment tests cover stale state, cross-company access, denied authority, cancellation failure, compensating wake, and idempotent retries. Backlog tests verify the original creation audit, saved plan, exact task count, and absence of task-bound runs. ## Risks - Agents with no explicit permission mode now receive full provider tool permission, including connected tools. This is a deliberate broad default. Existing explicit restrictive modes still apply. Controller authorization, company isolation, workspace boundaries, and Paperclip governance remain in force. - Reassignment crosses run cancellation and task ownership transactions. Durable stop intent, revalidation, audit receipts, and guarded queue dispatch cover interruptions and retries. - The new permission enum requires a current runner artifact. The remote artifact fallback uses the same resolved controller binary for upload and execution. - Live provider behavior remains subject to the selected model. Targeted live results do not qualify the full catalog. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with code execution and repository tools. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9fd2e50310 |
feat: create company skills from runner tasks (#13538)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Runner gives agents tools to change company resources. > - Users need agents to save reusable skills during a task. > - A saved skill needs a visible result that users can inspect and edit. > - This pull request adds `create_skill` and a task feed card linked to Skill Studio. > - Users can open the saved skill from the task and edit the same resource. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Runner tools, company skill storage, task feed, and Skill Studio. **Problem or motivation** The Runner has no dedicated tool to create a company skill. A user cannot follow a creation result from the task feed to the saved skill. **Proposed solution** Add a company-scoped `create_skill` tool. Save the skill with the existing company policy. Add one creation card to the task. Open a named sidebar tab from that card. Let the user open the same skill in Skill Studio. **Alternatives considered** An agent can write a local file, but that file is not a company skill. A second document copy in the task would become stale after a Studio edit. The sidebar therefore reads the saved skill directly. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the shipped Skills Manager, Skill Studio, and Skills Store milestone. The maintainer requested and approved this scope. Search found no duplicate `create_skill` PR or issue. Related UI validation work: #8715. This PR does not change that validation display. ## What Changed - Add the real Runner tool, its contract, and its mock implementation. - Validate the complete SKILL.md and derive company, task, agent, and run identity from authentication. - Apply the existing company skill policy. Do not assign the skill to an agent. - Make keyed retries return one skill and one creation event. Reject conflicting retries. - Make concurrent file creation safe. Never replace an existing published skill during creation. - Add a creation card, a named sidebar tab, and an Open in Skill Studio action. - Show saved Studio edits when the user returns to the task. - Add storage, policy, mode, retry, UI, and Product E2E tests. Document the tool. - Fix deleted-name reuse, onboarding panel persistence, immediate feed refresh, and mock validation parity from review. - Serialize Studio file edits and renames with skill deletion and recreation. Reject stale editor requests before they can change a replacement skill. - Generate the standalone mock parser and validator from the production contract. Use portable UUIDs so the browser scenario bundle builds. ## Verification - All latest-head PR checks pass on `145dd76a5`, including all server shards, browser E2E, Runner verification, build, typecheck, and release dry run. Greptile: 5/5 with no open findings. An interrupted CI runner was retried successfully. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - Review regressions: 73 storage tests, 6 real API tests, 63 UI tests, and 61 semantic runtime tests passed. Parser synchronization passed. - CI exposed existing fire-and-forget Sentry test races. Reproduced the resumption race locally, then synchronized the related sweep and finalizer assertions on the actual report; all 27 tests across the three affected files pass. - Runner scenario browser build and strict content-security-policy check: passed. - Runner suite: 2,012 tests passed; 10 skipped. - `pnpm test:run`: the general-server batch had 12,416 passes and two failures. The old tool-count assertion was fixed; all 16 authority tests then passed. The chat webhook test had a socket error; it passed four isolated reruns. - Both workspace test groups passed. The isolated route suites completed. Two socket failures in the initial route batches passed on individual reruns; all remaining 61 files passed. - Product E2E `create-skill-studio`: passed with local Codex and local ACPX Claude. - Manual browser test: submit a task, observe the real tool call and creation card, open the sidebar, edit in Studio, save, and return. The task reached Done. The saved second revision and sidebar tab survived a server restart. - The new companion headless Runner Eval passed. Companion coverage PR: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/23. Daytona was not run because no immutable runner image was configured. ## Risks - Database writes and local file writes cannot share one transaction. Recovery accepts only an exact file-for-file retry after a database rollback. Conflicting files remain untouched. - The sidebar displays the current skill. The feed card remains the historical creation receipt. - No database migration, dependency, or workflow change is included. - Remote Daytona behavior still needs a run with a configured immutable image. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (`gpt-6-astra`) handled design, integration, review, and browser verification. OpenAI `gpt-5.6-luna` assisted with bounded implementation and eval work. Both used code execution and tool access. The host did 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
fac07b42ad |
fix(runner): preserve durable native session authority across recovery (#13092)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The native runner carries tool results and task output to the control plane. > - A lost connection must not change which run owns a result. > - A session must not become reusable while provider output is still pending. > - This pull request adds strict recovery evidence and bounded drain barriers. > - It preserves current PRP version negotiation and session-goal support. > - The benefit is safer reuse of native sessions after a transport failure. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13038. This is the first of two stacked pull requests. It contains the native runtime prerequisites. The second pull request contains the experimental chat-channel integration. It preserves the provider identity and typed terminal-failure contracts in #13074 and the durable recovery work in #13075. **What happened?** Native session failures could leave retained provider events, incomplete tool results, or warm handoff state that was not safe to reuse. A later run could observe output from an earlier authority. **Expected behavior** Recovery must preserve exact run, tool, process, artifact, and lease evidence. Uncertain or corrupt state must fail closed. A successful close must prove that retained provider output is settled. **Steps to reproduce** Run the transport and control-plane regressions. They hold and drop authenticated frames, fail durable writes, and restart fresh controllers and runner processes with retained state. Provider executables are local test fixtures. ## What Changed - Preserve pending provider cleanup and semantic-result evidence across session close and restart. - Add an authenticated warm handoff with exact old and new identities, durable receipts, and completion acknowledgement. - Drain retained provider events under the cumulative acknowledgement fence. - Reject corrupt tool-result contracts without unsafe provider replay or reusable checkpoints. - Keep ordinary PRP v1 sessions and current session-goal behavior. Require negotiated PRP v2 and acknowledged native session evidence before warm authority rotation. - Preserve late semantic inputs and exact durable result receipts until close can prove settlement. - Add transport, crash-window, artifact, checkpoint, and final-output regressions. - Deduplicate resolved execution delivery under the current issue lock. Reuse the exact existing successor after concurrent scans or a lost acknowledgement. Preserve newer operator evidence. - Persist idle provider integrity/capacity failures before process retirement, retain permanent model-rejection classification, and keep external question identifiers out of task instructions. - Expose only the context source on native status events. Keep thin dispatch projections compatible without exposing the complete context. ## Verification - Review-fix revision: 128 runtime-context/native-session tests, five idle-failure/adjacent Rust cases, 24 warm crash-window cases, three startup-notification/close cases, and five attach/backlog cases passed. The security and idle-failure cases were first reproduced failing. - Prior merged revision: runner production build, TypeScript typecheck, complete Rust workspace tests and formatting passed; 272 focused runner tests and two real PostgreSQL regressions passed. - Earlier full runner runs and CI Build failed on missing semantic-result fixture receipts, stale local provider fixture bytes, startup-notification ordering, and a confirmation-loss fixture that could accidentally send its final ACK. Each cause was reproduced and corrected without relaxing production authority or close assertions. These earlier runs are retained as failures, not represented as passing verification. - The first local repository-wide run failed before later phases because the isolated install omitted PostgreSQL's native-library aliases; it also encountered an unrelated occupied-port fixture. Those results are retained, not represented as a passing run. - Exact `335b2ee52709afb3885d4d6ebb2a3ece4b5864d6`: the complete runner suite passed 1,888 tests, with 10 existing skips. The full Rust release workspace passed with serial test scheduling. The unchanged parallel Rust run hit the five-second 300-descendant fixture deadline; that failure is retained. No deadline or assertion was relaxed. - The resolved-execution regression suite passed 57 tests, including concurrent delivery, lost acknowledgement, superseded authority, and newer operator evidence. Plain server typecheck passed. The duplicate-delivery cases were first reproduced failing. - Prior exact `335b2ee52709afb3885d4d6ebb2a3ece4b5864d6` CI passed all required jobs and Greptile reported 5/5. Its local general-server run passed 7,208 tests but failed one responsibility fixture; later phases did not run. The fixture started the next wake while its bounded handoff was active. It also used nonexistent comment IDs, which hid the current stored-message-author identity rule. The updated tests use real message authors, preserve task ownership, and await exact automatic handoffs. No production identity policy changed. - Current head `aa39275a1f300f7d1a0b16cd0885eea567cff6b0` includes current master and the native context-source projection. The focused identity/status cohort passed 27 tests and plain server typecheck passed. Fresh full repository tests, types, build, required CI, and Greptile review are pending. Final results will be updated before merge. - This is deterministic local-provider evidence. It is not a claim of complete live-provider qualification. ## Risks - This changes authenticated recovery and close ordering. The TypeScript transport and runner binary must be built from the same revision. - Failed or incomplete evidence intentionally prevents reuse and can require a fresh run. - PRP v1 ordinary/cold sessions remain supported. A v1 connection lease cannot upgrade in place. A current v2-capable runner held on a v1 lease was qualified through owned-process retirement/join, fresh bootstrap on the same old authority, v2 observation/ACK, then warm rotation. Legacy binary replacement and adopted-owner migration are not qualified by that test; rollout must not present them as automatic same-lease upgrades. - This pull request has no database migration or chat-channel activation. The second pull request keeps the channel feature experimental. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex assisted with implementation, tool execution, tests, and reconciliation. The existing implementation records OpenAI `gpt-6-astra` assistance. The current environment does not report a context-window size. No private reasoning traces are included. ## 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
a9297c3c07 |
test(runner): add Codex trace conformance (#12370)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Codex driver needs a controller-owned oracle for semantic completion and replay > - Provider proposals are advisory and must satisfy the exact task envelope > - Persisted events must be bounded and validated before deterministic replay > - Live provider behaviors also need one checked-in, schema-validated fixture > - This pull request adds that test and conformance layer before the full driver > - The runner adapter remains disabled and no production execution path changes ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** `packages/paperclip-runner` Codex trace, result-validation, and replay conformance. **Problem or motivation** A provider-completed turn is not sufficient authority to finalize a Paperclip run. Results must match the controller-owned completion contract, and persisted provider events must be validated before they can rebuild controller state. **Proposed solution** Add a bounded Codex trace harness that validates result proposals, emits controller decisions and terminals, verifies live/replay parity, and rejects malformed persisted streams. Add a validated fixture for runtime requests, goals, lineage, controls, reconnect identity, and redaction cases. **Alternatives considered** Embedding these assertions only in the production driver would mix controller authority with provider transport behavior and make deterministic replay harder to review. **Roadmap alignment** This supports the Codex-first experimental runner. It does not enable the runner adapter or add another provider. ## What Changed - Added exact task-envelope result validation. - Added bounded persisted-event validation and deterministic replay. - Added a controller-owned Codex trace harness and parity assertions. - Added and validated the checked-in Live console conformance fixture. - Updated the generated protocol manifest with the fixture source. - Added focused result and fixture tests. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - The focused trace-conformance test has 2 passing cases. ## Risks The main risks are accepting a mismatched semantic result or replaying corrupted provider history. Validation covers schema, contract revision, criteria identity, disposition invariants, event identity, uniqueness, ordering, terminal count, and byte limits. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 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 (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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
ea86e780af |
feat(runner): add authorized scenario tool runtime (#12361)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The runner action catalog defines what scenario tools can exist > - A catalog entry must not grant authority by itself > - Scenario runs need run-scoped discovery and invocation checks > - Observable results must not expose protected values > - This pull request adds an authorized package-local scenario tool runtime > - The benefit is deterministic tool testing without production service authority ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** `packages/paperclip-runner` scenario tool runtime. **Problem or motivation** Scenario tests need to expose only authorized actions. They also need stable denial records, redaction, and idempotent command handling. **Proposed solution** Project the canonical scenario contracts into a visible catalog. Recheck policy at invocation. Dispatch allowed operations through the mock control-plane port and return redacted receipts. **Alternatives considered** Direct production bindings are outside this pull request. The runtime uses only the package-local mock port. **Roadmap alignment** This supports runner conformance and scenario testing. It does not enable an adapter or production service call. ## What Changed - Added run-scoped scenario tool discovery. - Added claim, role, task-mode, and policy authorization. - Added input validation, redaction, and authorization records. - Added fake-agent and Codex definition projections. - Added deterministic mock dispatch and idempotency coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - The focused semantic runtime test has 10 passing cases. ## Risks Low risk. The runtime is package-local and uses the mock control-plane port. It creates no production binding. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 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 (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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
300b7f4b7e |
Add deterministic capability control plane (#12355)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Semantic operations need a control plane that owns authorization and state changes > - Conformance tests need this authority without a live server or database > - The existing in-memory port covers transport facts but not capability-governed domains > - This pull request adds a deterministic capability-aware control plane for tests > - It keeps the implementation behind the package testing entry point > - The benefit is repeatable authorization and mutation tests before production wiring lands ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** packages/paperclip-runner testing and semantic capability contracts **Problem or motivation** Later semantic action slices need deterministic company, actor, task, governance, workspace, secret, budget, routine, and audit state. A live Paperclip server would make those tests slow and environment-dependent. **Proposed solution** Add serializable capability fixture types and an in-memory control-plane adapter. Enforce company scope, claims, roles, idempotency, redaction, faults, and audit records. Export the adapter only from the testing entry point. **Alternatives considered** The tests could mock each action separately. That would duplicate authorization rules and would not verify state transitions across multiple actions. **Roadmap alignment** This supports the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It does not enable production semantic operations or change app execution. ## What Changed - Add deterministic capability fixture types and seed state. - Add an in-memory capability control-plane adapter. - Enforce run, company, actor, claim, role, and idempotency boundaries. - Model governed task, document, interaction, workspace, secret, routine, and audit changes. - Add deterministic tests and testing-entry-point exports. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - The branch changes 5 files relative to its declared base. ## Risks The main risk is a permissive mock that hides a production authorization error. The adapter fails closed for missing claims, wrong roles, cross-company access, duplicate mutations, invalid state, and restricted secret access. Tests cover each fixture domain and serialized restore behavior. > 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 agentic 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 linked an existing public issue or described the issue in-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 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 - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
773d357d8a |
Add deterministic runner conformance core (#12354)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The runner needs repeatable tests at the provider and control-plane boundaries > - Network services and live providers cannot produce deterministic conformance results > - Small in-memory adapters can exercise the same public contracts without production side effects > - This pull request adds a deterministic harness driver, control-plane adapter, and fixture runner > - It exposes these helpers only from the testing entry point > - The benefit is stable cross-boundary verification for later runtime changes ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** packages/paperclip-runner testing and conformance support **Problem or motivation** The public runner contracts have unit tests, but later provider and server slices need a deterministic way to exercise session, event, replay, checkpoint, and result behavior together. **Proposed solution** Add in-memory implementations of the harness-driver and control-plane ports. Add a canonical conformance fixture and runner. Export these utilities only from `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner/testing`. **Alternatives considered** The tests could start a real provider or server. That would make the conformance gate slower, less portable, and dependent on credentials or network state. **Roadmap alignment** This supports the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It does not enable a production adapter or change current app execution. ## What Changed - Add a deterministic harness-driver implementation. - Add an in-memory control-plane adapter with replay and checkpoint support. - Add a canonical provider-neutral conformance fixture. - Add a reusable conformance runner and contract tests. - Export the helpers from the package testing entry point only. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - The branch changes 10 files relative to its declared base. ## Risks Low risk. This pull request adds test-only adapters and conformance helpers. It does not select a runtime or change production behavior. Contract tests verify event identity, replay, checkpoints, and deterministic results. > 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 agentic 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 linked an existing public issue or described the issue in-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 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 - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |