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

2026-08-30 01:22:50 -05:00

..

driver-conformance.json

…