mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 15:55:46 +01:00
dfd2a6efcab84bc19106a2dbf720eb53cb2282d3
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
e2cf9a670f |
fix(runner-e2e): resync SDK public lock pins and make the lockfile bot keep them current (#20623)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Runner support suite proves the plugin SDK public types from pinned sources in `tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.json` > - That registry pins the committed `pnpm-lock.yaml` blob and a `lockSha256` that must equal the `outputSha256` in `tests/runner-e2e/report-lock.json` > - The lockfile bot refresh #20615 changed the lock and `report-lock.json`, but the bot does not write the SDK registry > - The bot merges without CI, so the drift guard from #20579 could not block it, and every PR now fails `ci / Runner support suite` > - The guard also checked only the source blobs, so it did not name the `lockSha256` drift, and the sync script could not update `lockSha256` > - This pull request regenerates the registry, derives `lockSha256` from the reviewed policy, and makes the bot resync and check the registry in its own commit > - The benefit is that master CI is green again, and the next lockfile refresh cannot leave the SDK proof stale ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20615. Refs #20579. Refs #20550. Refs #20613. Overlaps #20618, which refreshes only the registry data. This PR has the same data change and also closes the gap that let the drift land. **What happened?** After #20615 merged, `ci / Runner support suite` failed on master and on every PR (for example runs 42877750315 and 42877750957, and PR #20613). `source-sdk-public-type.test.ts` and `source-sdk-evidence.test.ts` failed with "Reviewed SDK reference policy does not match public proof". `source-sdk-public-inputs.test.mjs` failed with "pnpm-lock.yaml (changed)". **Expected behavior** A lockfile refresh keeps the SDK public proof registry in step with the lock and the reviewed report-lock policy. If the registry drifts, the failure names the stale pin and the fix command. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Check out master at `3bf7af6c77`. 2. Run `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts source-sdk`. 3. See the "Reviewed SDK reference policy does not match public proof" failure. ## What Changed - Root cause: #20615 changed `report-lock.json` from output `2360d5e9…` to `b3208306…` and changed the `pnpm-lock.yaml` blob from `851e65af…` to `6d825f97…`. The registry kept the old values. `refresh-lockfile.yml` commits only the lockfiles and the report-lock proof, and it merges without CI. - `source-sdk-public-inputs.json`: regenerated with `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --write`. Only `inputs["pnpm-lock.yaml"]` and `lockSha256` change. The compiler, parser and Zod pins do not change. - `source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs`: the sync now copies `lockSha256` from the committed `report-lock.json` `outputSha256`. It refuses when the committed lock is not that policy's reviewed input or output. This is the same rule that `prepareReviewedSdkReference` applies. Only the lockfile bot can write that policy, so a contributor cannot choose `lockSha256`. - `staleSdkPublicInputs()`: also reports a `lockSha256` that differs from the committed report-lock output. The guard test then names both stale pins and the `--write` command. - `source-sdk-reviewed-fixture.ts`: the "Reviewed SDK reference policy does not match public proof" error now names the two values and the fix command. The check itself is unchanged. - `refresh-lockfile.yml`: after the lock commit, the bot runs the SDK sync with `--write`, amends the commit, and runs `--check` before it pushes. `head_sha` is still read after the amend, so the bot merges the exact commit it checked. - Tests: new sync tests for a lockfile refresh and for an unreviewed lock, and a workflow-order test in `lockfile-refresh-merge.test.mjs`. - Docs: `doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md` §8.1 and `tests/runner-e2e/OPERATIONS.md` describe the resync. ## Verification - Reproduced on master: `source-sdk-public-type.test.ts` and `source-sdk-evidence.test.ts` failed with the policy mismatch. - `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts source-sdk prepare-report-lock sdk-canary workflow-security`: 9 files, 135 tests pass. - Before the registry change, the extended guard reported `pnpm-lock.yaml (changed), tests/runner-e2e/report-lock.json outputSha256 (lockSha256 changed)` with the fix command. - `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs $(git rev-parse HEAD) --check` reports `changed: false`. - `node --test .github/scripts/tests/lockfile-refresh-merge.test.mjs .github/scripts/tests/lockfile-refresh-workflows.test.mjs .github/scripts/tests/lockfile-trust.test.mjs`: 39 tests pass. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit` on a host with load near 28: 6 files timed out, and none of them are the SDK proof files. All 15 of those files pass when run alone. CI runs the full suite. ## Risks - The bot step now runs one more repository script. If that script refuses (for example, an unreviewed committed lock), the refresh PR is not pushed. Before this change, the bot merged a refresh that made master red. - `lockSha256` now comes from the reviewed policy, not from the old registry value. The proof check is unchanged. It still needs the lock bytes to hash to `lockSha256`. - If #20618 merges first, this branch rebases cleanly, because the registry change is identical. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edit) and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 5.5
|
e3041f5481 |
fix(ci): let the lockfile bot own the sandbox provider lockfiles (#19522)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The repository has a supply-chain rule: contributors do not commit lockfiles. A bot and verified Dependabot commits write them. > - The rule checks only the root `pnpm-lock.yaml`. > - The sandbox providers are outside the root workspace, so they have two more pnpm lockfiles. Pull requests edited them by hand, for example #12791, #18839 and #19489. > - This pull request makes the same rule and the same bot cover those two lockfiles. > - The benefit is one lockfile rule for every managed pnpm lockfile, and no lockfile edits in contributor pull requests. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19489 **What existing behavior does this improve?** The lockfile policy and the lockfile refresh bot. **Subsystem affected** CI: `.github/scripts/lockfile-trust.mjs`, `.github/workflows/refresh-lockfile.yml`, and the sandbox provider installs. **Current behavior** `lockfile-trust.mjs` blocks contributor edits to `pnpm-lock.yaml` only. A contributor can edit `scripts/typecheck-sandbox-providers/pnpm-lock.yaml` or `packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/pnpm-lock.yaml`, and CI passes. The refresh bot does not update these files. `typecheck:test-programs` fails on a stale provider lockfile and tells the contributor to commit a new one. **Proposed behavior** The policy blocks contributor edits to all three lockfiles. The refresh bot regenerates all three after merge. CI resolves a stale provider lockfile in place for the run, as it does for the root lockfile. **Reason and benefit** Lockfile content comes only from the bot or from verified Dependabot commits. Contributors do not need to run pnpm in special folders. **Breaking changes** None. A pull request that edits a provider lockfile now fails the policy check. Remove the lockfile change from the pull request. The bot commits it after merge. ## What Changed - `lockfile-trust.mjs` now exports `LOCKFILES`: the root lockfile, the shared sandbox provider lockfile, and the Daytona lockfile. The policy blocks contributor edits to each of them. A Dependabot pull request must match a verified Dependabot commit for each lockfile that it changes. The `merged` command and the reporting-lock proof still use only the root lockfile. - `check-pr-lockfile.mjs` (advisory check) uses the same list. - `refresh-lockfile.yml`: - A job-level `LOCKFILES` env lists the same three files. A test checks that it equals the policy list. - A new step regenerates the two provider lockfiles with `--resolution-only --ignore-scripts --no-frozen-lockfile`. - The unexpected-changes check, the change check, and `git add` cover all three lockfiles. - The release-age gate checks the added versions in every lockfile. - A held refresh saves all three lockfiles at their repository paths, with a `source-locks.sha256` file. The next run reuses them only if every master lockfile is unchanged. An artifact in the old format is not reused. - The PR title is now `chore(lockfile): refresh pnpm lockfiles`. - `check-lockfile-release-age.mjs` accepts more than one `--base`/`--head` pair. - `scripts/typecheck-test-programs.mjs`: if the frozen install of the provider workspace fails, the script resolves the lockfile in place and installs frozen again. - `scripts/build-standalone-public-packages.mjs`: the same fallback applies to a package with a committed lockfile (Daytona). `release.sh` already restores tracked files when it exits. - `doc/DEVELOPING.md` and `doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md` describe the managed lockfiles. They also say that the Pi and Kimi distribution lockfiles stay hand-managed, because they hold attested provider pins. ## Verification - `node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/build-standalone-concurrency.test.mjs`: 731 tests pass. New tests cover: - the policy for provider lockfiles, including a real git history with a Dependabot commit and a later hand edit - the workflow and policy lists match - the unexpected-changes check, run with bash against a fixture - a held refresh round trip, and its invalidation when a provider lockfile changes on master - the release-age gate across lockfile pairs - the inline fallback in both install scripts - `node --test scripts/typecheck-test-programs.test.mjs`: the install tests pass. Two tests fail locally only because this worktree has no root `node_modules` (no `tsc`). They also fail without this change. - I ran the new bot commands on master with pnpm 9.15.4. No package version changed. pnpm 9.15.4 removes `libc:` fields and adds `deprecated:` notes, so the first refresh is a metadata-only change. The release-age gate passes it because it adds no versions. - I ran the release-age and held-lock steps locally with bash against this commit. The gate reported `eligible=true`, and `sha256sum --check` accepted the saved hashes. - The workflow YAML parses, and `bash -n` accepts every `run` block. - Not testable before merge: the policy job loads `lockfile-trust.mjs` from the base branch, so the new rule applies only to pull requests opened after this merges. The refresh workflow runs only on master. ## Risks - The release build now resolves a stale Daytona lockfile in place, from the registry. The root release install already resolves without a frozen lockfile, so this is the same level of trust. - The paid runner e2e job still installs Daytona with `--frozen-lockfile`. After a Daytona manifest change merges, its Daytona cases fail until the bot's refresh merges. This matches the rule that paid jobs refuse a new root lockfile until its refresh merges. - Dependabot pull requests for the provider entries in #19489 change a provider lockfile. They pass only if each lockfile matches a verified Dependabot commit, the same as for the root lockfile. - Low risk otherwise: the bot keeps its existing token, environment, and merge rules. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) in Claude Code, with tool use (shell, file edits, and git). ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 5.5
|
3a8f95d928 |
fix(ci): let verified Dependabot lockfiles merge through the reporting-lock gate (#19356)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Only trusted environments may change `pnpm-lock.yaml`: the lockfile refresh workflow and Dependabot. Contributors never commit it. > - Paid evaluation jobs also install a lock only when the reporting-lock proof (`tests/runner-e2e/report-lock.json` and `.patch`) admits it. > - #19283 added a CI test that checks the committed lock against that proof. Only the refresh workflow writes the proof, so every Dependabot lockfile pull request now fails CI. Examples are #17364, #17172, and #17911. > - A merged Dependabot lockfile also breaks the refresh workflow. `prepare-report-lock.mjs --refresh` refuses to renew the proof for a lock that the proof does not already admit. > - This pull request lets a verified Dependabot lockfile pass, and it keeps both lockfile rules strict. It also closes a gap in the contributor rule. > - The benefit is that Dependabot security updates can merge again, and only trusted environments write lock content. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19283, #17364, #17172, #17911, #19303. **What happened?** `server/scripts/reporting-lock-policy.test.mjs` fails on each Dependabot pull request that changes `pnpm-lock.yaml`. The error is "Reporting lock changed; review the dependency correction before install". A Dependabot pull request cannot change the proof files, so it can never pass. After a merge, the lockfile refresh also stops at "Committed report lock is not reviewed; refusing to refresh its proof". **Expected behavior** - Contributors cannot change `pnpm-lock.yaml` or the reporting-lock proof. - Dependabot can change `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - The lockfile refresh workflow can change `pnpm-lock.yaml` and the proof. - After a Dependabot lockfile merges, the refresh workflow admits it and renews the proof. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a Dependabot pull request that changes `pnpm-lock.yaml`, such as #17364. 2. Let CI run. The `server (9/12)` shard fails on the reporting-lock policy test. **Security gap found during this work** The old rule skipped the lockfile check when `github.head_ref` was `chore/refresh-lockfile`. A contributor could open a pull request from a fork branch with that name and commit a lockfile change. The old rule also exempted any pull request that Dependabot opened, including commits that other people pushed to its branch. ## What Changed - Add `.github/scripts/lockfile-trust.mjs`. It decides which writers may change lock content: - The refresh workflow: the head is `chore/refresh-lockfile` in this repository, and `github-actions[bot]` opened the pull request. - Dependabot: Dependabot opened the pull request from this repository, and the head `pnpm-lock.yaml` matches a Dependabot commit. That commit must have `dependabot[bot]` as its author, GitHub (`web-flow`) as its committer, and a verified signature. The script reads these fields from the GitHub API. - The reporting-lock proof files count as lock content. Only the refresh workflow may change them. - `pr-trusted.yml` policy job: replace the inline `head_ref` and author exemption with `lockfile-trust.mjs pr`. The job runs the script copy from the base commit, so a pull request cannot change the check that judges it. If the base predates the script, the job uses the earlier rule. - `refresh-lockfile.yml`: add `lockfile-trust.mjs merged`. It checks that the last lockfile change on `master` is a GitHub-signed merge of a Dependabot pull request, and that the lockfile at the pull request head matches a verified Dependabot commit. If both checks pass, it gives the lockfile SHA-256 to `prepare-report-lock.mjs --refresh --trusted-lock-sha256`. - `refresh-lockfile.yml` PR step: check `pnpm-lock.yaml` and both proof files before it exits as unchanged. A refresh that renews only the proof now opens a pull request. - `prepare-report-lock.mjs` and its `.d.mts` declaration: `refreshReportLock` accepts a trusted lock hash. If the trusted lock already resolves, the proof admits it exactly with an empty patch. If not, the proof records the resolution as the reviewed correction, as before. - `reporting-lock-policy.test.mjs`: skip on Dependabot pull requests. The policy job verifies those lockfiles. The general test job gets `PAPERCLIP_CI_PR_AUTHOR` for this purpose. This keeps the test, so it still merges cleanly with #19303. - `check-pr-lockfile.mjs` (advisory gate): allow Dependabot lockfile changes, and flag changes to the proof files. - `CODEOWNERS`: add the two proof files. - `doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md`: describe the writers, the `@dependabot recreate` path, and the proof renewal after merge. ## Verification - `node --test '.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs'`: 707 passed. This includes 17 new tests in `lockfile-trust.test.mjs` and 3 new tests in `check-pr-lockfile.test.mjs`. The new tests run the `pr` command against real git histories with a stub `gh`. - `tests/runner-e2e/prepare-report-lock.test.ts`: 10 passed, including 3 new trusted-lock refresh tests. I ran it with a minimal Vitest config, because the runner-e2e config builds a provider bundle first. - `server/scripts/reporting-lock-policy.test.mjs`: passes normally, and skips with `PAPERCLIP_CI_PR_AUTHOR=dependabot[bot]`. - Live check of the `pr` mode against #17364 with the real GitHub API: - With the real author, it reports "pnpm-lock.yaml matches verified Dependabot commit 83c328c15c…" and `writer=dependabot`. - With a contributor as the author and `chore/refresh-lockfile` as the head ref, it fails. - Live check of the `merged` mode at the real merge commits of #16018, #16020, and #15361. All three report a trusted lock hash. For #16018 and #15361, `master` changed after Dependabot's commit, so GitHub's merge produced different lockfile bytes. An exact-bytes rule would refuse them. That is why the rule trusts GitHub-signed merges of a verified Dependabot head. - Greptile reviewed `513ca2def8` at 4/5 with one P1: a proof-only refresh was never committed, because the PR step checked only `pnpm-lock.yaml`. `edbeb1ea0d` fixes it. A new test in `lockfile-refresh-merge.test.mjs` runs the step's change check on a proof-only change. The test fails without the fix. - CI `Typecheck + Release Registry` failed at `edbeb1ea0d`: `prepare-report-lock.d.mts` did not declare the new options argument (TS2554 twice in `prepare-report-lock.test.ts`). `9139aaad85` updates the declaration. A local `tsc -p tests/runner-e2e/tsconfig.json` shows the 2 errors with the old declaration and none with the new one. - CI at `9139aaad85` failed in six general test shards. None of them run code that this pull request changes, and PR CI loads `pr-trusted.yml` from `master`. The failures: - `heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts`: "expected 'running' to be 'succeeded'" - `status-card-evaluation-work.test.ts`: a deadline comparison - `isolated-repository-rehome.test.ts`: timed out after 15 seconds - `chat-channels.integration.test.ts`: GitHub webhook recovery scheduling - `company-import-export-e2e.test.ts`: child server start timeout, which also fails on unrelated branches - `workspaces-b`: every test passed, but an `EPIPE` error came after `acpx-engine/execute.test.ts` I started a rerun of the failed jobs. - Superagent found a P1 at `9139aaad85`: a verified signature proves who committed, not who authored. A collaborator could sign a commit with their own key and set Dependabot as the author. `4fe180d6c1` also requires GitHub (`web-flow`) as the committer. New tests cover the spoofed-author case. #17364, #16018, #16020 and #15361 still verify against the GitHub API. - `git merge-file` merges this test change with #19303 without conflicts. - Not run: the full repository test suite and typecheck. These changes touch only CI scripts, workflows, one helper, and tests. GitHub CI covers full regression. ## Risks - `pr-trusted.yml` loads from `master`, so the new policy takes effect only after merge. This pull request's own CI uses the earlier rule. - A Dependabot pull request that is behind `master` now fails if someone merges `master` into it and the lockfile changes. Use `@dependabot recreate`. The policy job error says this. - Paid evaluation jobs refuse a merged Dependabot lockfile until the refresh pull request merges. The refresh merges without review when it adds no new package versions. If the release-age gate holds it, the wait lasts until a maintainer merges it or the daily refresh runs. During that time, the reporting-lock policy test also fails on other pull requests, which is the current behavior for any unrenewed lock. - The rule trusts GitHub as the signer of Dependabot commits and of merge commits (`web-flow`). Superagent uses the same trust root. - People with write access can still push to `chore/refresh-lockfile`. This was already true. The bot merges only its own head commit (`--match-head-commit`), and code-owner review covers anything else. - A future manual proof renewal, such as #19283, now needs the refresh workflow or an admin merge. A contributor pull request that changes the proof files fails. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution, in Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (focused tests; see Verification) - [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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 5.5
|
7d194e901f |
feat(ci): merge lockfile refresh PRs through a dedicated bot (#18238)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - CI owns `pnpm-lock.yaml`. Contributors do not commit it, so a poisoned lockfile cannot come in from a community PR. > - `refresh-lockfile.yml` regenerates the lockfile from the manifests on master and opens a PR. > - That PR waits on required checks and code owner review. A `GITHUB_TOKEN` push does not start the checks, so a maintainer must merge each PR by hand. > - The PR content comes only from manifests that maintainers already reviewed on master. A human review adds little. > - This pull request lets a dedicated GitHub App merge the refresh PR at once, without CI or review. > - A release-age gate holds the merge when the refresh adds a package version that is less than 3 days old on npm. > - The benefit is a lockfile loop that closes itself, without a bypass for any identity that other workflows can use. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12115 (the same stuck-PR problem, fixed there by starting the checks). Refs #18219 (an example refresh PR that needed a manual approval and merge). **What happened?** Each lockfile refresh PR stays open until a code owner approves it and a maintainer merges it. The required checks `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` also do not start, because the workflow pushes with `GITHUB_TOKEN`. **Expected behavior** The refresh PR merges with no human action and no CI run, unless it adds a package version that is too new to trust without review. **Steps to reproduce** Merge a manifest change to master. Look at the `chore/refresh-lockfile` PR that the workflow opens. It stays blocked. ## What Changed - `refresh-lockfile.yml` runs in a new `lockfile-refresh` environment. Only `master` can use this environment. - The workflow creates a token for a dedicated lockfile bot app after dependency resolution is complete. The token has only contents and pull request write access. - The workflow merges with `gh pr merge --squash --admin --match-head-commit <sha>`, not `--auto`. It merges only the commit that it pushed. - New `.github/scripts/check-lockfile-release-age.mjs` compares the base and refreshed lockfiles. It looks up the npm publish time of each added package version. The bot merges only when every version is at least 3 days old. A lookup error, a missing publish time, a non-registry version, or a resolution that is not a plain registry tarball also holds the merge. - When the gate holds the PR, the workflow posts or updates one report comment on the PR and does not merge. - A daily schedule runs the refresh again, so a held PR merges after its versions are old enough. - A held run uploads its lockfile as a `held-pnpm-lock` artifact. The artifact records the hash of the master lockfile it started from. The next master run resolves from it only while master still has that lockfile, so held versions stay while their manifests do not change, and a maintainer's lockfile correction replaces them. The workflow does not read the PR branch for this, because users with write access can push to it. - The generated PR body now describes the gate. - `tests/runner-e2e/OPERATIONS.md` now says that the bot can merge the report-lock correction without review, under the same gate. - New `lockfile-refresh-merge.test.mjs` pins the merge safeguards: the environment, the step order, the gate conditions, and `--match-head-commit`. - `doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md` §8.1 tells an admin how to create the app, the environment, and the ruleset bypass. It also tells why we do not use `github-actions` or `commitperclip` for the bypass. ## Verification - `node --test .github/scripts/tests/check-lockfile-release-age.test.mjs .github/scripts/tests/lockfile-refresh-*.test.mjs` passes (17/17). - I ran the gate against the real lockfile diff of #18219 and the live npm registry. With 3 days, all 7 added versions passed (`eligible=true`). With 60 days, it held all 7 `turbo` 2.11.10 versions (9.1 days old) and wrote the report. - The workflow YAML parses. actionlint did not run, because it is not installed locally and Docker was not available. - No live run yet. After the admin setup in §8.1, run the workflow with `workflow_dispatch` on master, or merge a manifest change. Then make sure that the bot opens and merges the refresh PR. ## Risks - **Setup order.** An org admin must do the steps in §8.1 before this PR merges. If not, the next refresh fails at the token step, and the PR stays open for a manual merge, as it does now. - **No CI on lockfile changes.** A bad resolution can land on master without a check. The next manifest PR or the canary release shows the problem. - **Release-age gate limits.** The gate stops only fast-detected attacks on new versions. A malicious version that stays undetected for more than 3 days still merges without review. Lockfile changes that add very new versions now wait for a maintainer or up to 3 days. - **Bypass scope.** The app bypasses the master ruleset only in pull request mode. It cannot push to master directly. Only the master-only `lockfile-refresh` environment holds its key. If the key leaks, the holder can merge any open PR past review. Rotate the key if you think it leaked. - **More master runs.** A merge by an app token starts push workflows on master. A merge by `GITHUB_TOKEN` does not. After each lockfile merge, the canary release runs, and the refresh workflow runs again with no change. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, in Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edit, GitHub CLI). ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |