## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip ships a native Runner binary, written in Rust, and seven CI lanes build it on every pull request > - `Canary Dry Run` is the slowest check on every green PR run, and most of its time is `cargo build --release` on third-party crates > - Master saves a Rust dependency cache for these lanes, but every PR lane logs `No cache found` and compiles every crate from zero > - The cache key matches, but GitHub also compares a hash of the absolute cache paths, and the master writer (RunsOn fleet, `/home/runner/_work/...`) and the PR readers (GitHub-hosted, `/home/runner/work/...`) hash different paths > - This pull request gives both sides a checkout-independent workspace path, so the hashes match and the PR lanes restore master's cache > - The benefit is about 2.5 minutes less wall clock per PR run and about 18 fewer runner-minutes per run ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this problem. The description below follows the enhancement template. Related prior PRs on the same cache: Refs #13194, Refs #13259, Refs #13457, Refs #13459, Refs #13500, Refs #13586. None of them pins the workspace path, so none of them fixes this miss. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The `Swatinem/rust-cache` restore step in the PR workflow lanes that build the Runner: `Canary Dry Run`, `Build`, `Typecheck + Release Registry`, and the four `Verify Paperclip Runner` lanes. **Subsystem affected** CI workflows under `.github/workflows/`, their guard tests under `.github/scripts/tests/`, and `doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md`. **Current behavior** Every PR lane logs `No cache found` although master holds an entry with the exact key. Run 36424309181 computed `v0-rust-release-runner-v1-Linux-x64-c3a3ca66-a95b0328`, and master holds a 678 MB entry with that key. GitHub matches a cache entry on the key and on a version hash of the absolute paths in the cache. The master writer runs on the RunsOn fleet, where the checkout is `/home/runner/_work/paperclip/paperclip`. The PR readers run on GitHub-hosted `ubuntu-latest`, where the checkout is `/home/runner/work/paperclip/paperclip`. The stored version `5c40870d…` is the sha256 of the `_work` paths plus `zstd-without-long|1.0`. The `work` paths hash to `1656e9ee…`. The key can never match, so each lane compiles every third-party crate again. **Proposed behavior** The writer and the readers pass the same checkout-independent path to `rust-cache`. Both runner layouts then produce the same version hash, and the PR lanes restore master's cache. **Reason and benefit** `Canary Dry Run` takes 533s on a green run. 251s of that is dependency compilation that a warm cache removes. Seven lanes pay this cost in every PR run. **Breaking changes** None. This change affects CI only. ## What Changed - Add a `Pin the Runner Rust workspace path` step before `rust-cache` in the master writer (`release-verify.yml`, typecheck and runner lanes) and in all four PR readers (`pr-trusted.yml`). The step creates the symlink `$HOME/paperclip-runner-rust` → `$GITHUB_WORKSPACE/packages/paperclip-runner/runner` and passes that path to `rust-cache` as `workspaces: <path> -> target`. `rust-cache` resolves the input with `path.resolve`, which does not follow symlinks, so both runner layouts now produce the same cache paths and the same version hash. `$HOME` is `/home/runner` on both images, which is why the `~/.cargo` paths already agreed. - Bump the shared keys `release-runner-v1` → `release-runner-v2` and `release-typecheck-v1` → `release-typecheck-v2`. The old, unreachable entries are then visibly orphaned instead of sharing a key with the new ones. - Extend the guard tests `pr-runner-rust-cache`, `release-runner-cache`, and `typecheck-rust-cache`. They now require the pin step in both workflows with identical text, placed before the cache step, and they reject a `workspaces:` value that resolves under the checkout. The `pr-runner-rust-cache` test checks all four PR reader jobs and fails if a `rust-cache` step appears in a PR job that is not in its reader list. - Update `doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md` to name the `release-runner-v2` key and to explain the pinned workspace path. ### Expected savings once merged Measured from run 36424309181. "Removed" is the dependency-compile time that a warm restore removes, minus about 18s to restore the 680 MB entry. The fleet writer's own restore shows this cost. | Lane | Today | Removed | Expected | |---|---|---|---| | Canary Dry Run | 533s | ~150s | ~380s | | Typecheck + Release Registry | 462s | ~155s | ~305s | | Verify Paperclip Runner (vitest 2/2) | 453s | ~245s | ~210s | | Verify Paperclip Runner (rust) | 400s | ~175s | ~225s | | Build | 348s | ~130s | ~220s | | Verify Paperclip Runner (static checks) | 321s | ~170s | ~150s | | Verify Paperclip Runner (vitest 1/2) | 346s | ~70s | ~275s | - Wall clock per PR run: about 533s → about 385s. That is about 2.5 minutes faster to a green check set. `Canary Dry Run` stays the longest check. The rest is the non-cargo work in `release.sh` (standalone package builds ~30s, publish-payload preview ~73s). - Runner time: about 18 runner-minutes saved per PR run across the seven lanes. - The first master push after merge compiles from zero once in the fleet writer (about 4 extra minutes on that one run) and saves the v2 entry. Later PRs hit it. When a PR changes `Cargo.lock`, the prefix restore key still gives a partial hit, as before. ## Verification - Run the guard tests for the three cache lanes: `node --test .github/scripts/tests/pr-runner-rust-cache.test.mjs .github/scripts/tests/release-runner-cache.test.mjs .github/scripts/tests/typecheck-rust-cache.test.mjs` Result: 21 pass, 0 fail. - Run the full guard suite: `node --test '.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs'`. Result: 376 pass, 3 fail. The 3 failures are in `docker-canary-promotion.test.mjs`. They hit a sandbox temp-file ENOENT and fail the same way on the unmodified branch. - Run `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`. Result: 14 pass. - Local archive test: create a tar from the `_work` layout through the symlink (relative `../../../paperclip-runner-rust/target` entries, `tar -P -C $GITHUB_WORKSPACE`, the same way `@actions/cache` does). Extract it on the `work` layout. The files land in the real target directory and the symlink stays intact. - After merge, open any GitHub-hosted PR run and confirm that the seven Rust lanes log `Restored from cache key ...release-runner-v2...` in place of `No cache found`. ## Risks - Low risk. The change touches CI workflows, their tests, and one doc page. No product code changes. - If the pin step fails, `rust-cache` reports a miss and the lane compiles from zero, as it does today. The build does not break. - Both runner layouts sit four levels under `/home/runner`, so the relative `../../../` archive entries line up. The existing `~/.cargo/registry` and `~/.cargo/git` cache paths already rely on this property. A future runner image with a different `$HOME` depth would miss the cache but would not fail the job. - `rm -rf "$pinned"` acts on the symlink itself (no trailing slash), never on the checkout behind it. It only matters on a reused runner. - Squash-merge note: the branch carries commits by `Bender (Fable)`. Add `Co-Authored-By: Bender (Fable) <bender-fable@paperclip.local>` to the squash body to keep that authorship. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Fable 5.1 (`claude-fable-5-1`), run through Claude Code inside a Paperclip agent heartbeat. Extended thinking was on. Tool use: shell, GitHub CLI, and the GitHub REST API for workflow logs, cache listings, and PR operations. ## 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) - [ ] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id. The agent execution workspace fixed this branch name, so I cannot rename it. Squash-merge drops the branch name. - [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: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Bender (Fable) <bender-fable@paperclip.local>
16 KiB
Release Automation Setup
This document covers the GitHub and npm setup required for the current Paperclip release model:
- automatic canaries from
master - manual stable promotion from a chosen source ref
- npm trusted publishing via GitHub OIDC
- protected release infrastructure in a public repository
Repo-side files that depend on this setup:
.github/workflows/release.yml.github/CODEOWNERS
Note:
- the release workflows intentionally use
pnpm install --no-frozen-lockfile - this matches the repo's current policy where
pnpm-lock.yamlis refreshed by GitHub automation after manifest changes land onmaster - the publish jobs then restore
pnpm-lock.yamlbefore runningscripts/release.sh, so the release script still sees a clean worktree
1. Merge the Repo Changes First
Before touching GitHub or npm settings, merge the release automation code so the referenced workflow filenames already exist on the default branch.
Required files:
.github/workflows/release.yml.github/CODEOWNERS
2. Configure npm Trusted Publishing
Do this for every public package that Paperclip publishes.
At minimum that includes:
paperclipai@paperclipai/server@paperclipai/ui- public packages under
packages/
2.1. In npm, open each package settings page
For each package:
- open npm as an owner of the package
- go to the package settings / publishing access area
- add a trusted publisher for the GitHub repository
paperclipai/paperclip
2.2. Add one trusted publisher entry per package
npm currently allows one trusted publisher configuration per package.
Configure:
- workflow:
.github/workflows/release.yml
Repository:
paperclipai/paperclip
Environment name:
- leave the npm trusted-publisher environment field blank
Why:
- the single
release.ymlworkflow handles both canary and stable publishing - GitHub environments
npm-canaryandnpm-stablestill enforce different approval rules on the GitHub side
2.2.1. Newly added public packages need a bootstrap phase
Trusted publishing is configured on the npm package itself, not at the repo scope. That means a brand-new public package must not be auto-enrolled into CI publishing until its npm package exists and its trusted publisher has been configured.
Repo policy:
- add every non-private package to
scripts/release-package-manifest.json - set
"publishFromCi": trueonly when CI is expected to publish that package - if the package is not ready for CI publishing yet, keep
"publishFromCi": false - complete the package bootstrap before merging any PR that changes a release-enabled new package
Bootstrap sequence for a new package:
- publish the package once from a trusted maintainer machine using normal npm auth
- open that package on npm and add the
paperclipai/papercliptrusted publisher for.github/workflows/release.yml - rerun or dry-run the release flow as needed to confirm CI publishing now works
- only then enable
"publishFromCi": true
PR CI enforces this by checking changed release-enabled package manifests against npm. That keeps master canary publishing healthy while preserving the no-long-lived-token model for normal CI releases.
2.3. Verify trusted publishing before removing old auth
After the workflows are live:
- run a canary publish
- confirm npm publish succeeds without any
NPM_TOKEN - run a stable dry-run
- run one real stable publish
Only after that should you remove old token-based access.
3. Remove Legacy npm Tokens
After trusted publishing works:
- revoke any repository or organization
NPM_TOKENsecrets used for publish - revoke any personal automation token that used to publish Paperclip
- if npm offers a package-level setting to restrict publishing to trusted publishers, enable it
Goal:
- no long-lived npm publishing token should remain in GitHub Actions
4. Create GitHub Environments
Create three environments in the GitHub repository:
npm-canarynpm-betanpm-stable
Path:
- GitHub repository
SettingsEnvironmentsNew environment
5. Configure npm-canary
Recommended settings for npm-canary:
- environment name:
npm-canary - required reviewers: none
- wait timer: none
- deployment branches and tags:
- selected branches only
- allow
master
Reasoning:
- every push to
mastershould be able to publish a canary automatically - no human approval should be required for canaries
The scheduled nightly lane also publishes under npm-canary: it is the same
trust level (fully automated, no human gate), its runs execute on master so
the branch rule is satisfied, and reusing the environment means the nightly
lane required no new environments and no npm trusted-publisher changes
(publishing still happens from release.yml, see section 2.2).
5.1. Configure npm-beta
Recommended settings for npm-beta:
- environment name:
npm-beta - required reviewers: at least one maintainer
- prevent self-review: enabled when your team size allows it
- wait timer: none
- deployment branches and tags:
- selected branches only
- allow
master
Reasoning:
- beta promotions are deliberate human decisions; the required reviewer on this environment is the promotion gate
- create this environment before the first
channel: betadispatch. If the workflow runs first, GitHub auto-creates the environment with no protection rules, and that first beta would publish without approval
Like nightly, beta publishing lives in release.yml, so no npm
trusted-publisher changes are needed (see section 2.2).
6. Configure npm-stable
Recommended settings for npm-stable:
- environment name:
npm-stable - required reviewers: at least one maintainer other than the person triggering the workflow when possible
- prevent self-review: enabled
- admin bypass: disabled if your team can tolerate it
- wait timer: optional
- deployment branches and tags:
- selected branches only
- allow
master
Reasoning:
- stable publishes should require an explicit human approval gate
- the workflow is manual, but the environment should still be the real control point
7. Protect master
Open the branch protection settings for master.
Recommended rules:
- require pull requests before merging
- require status checks to pass before merging
- require review from code owners
- dismiss stale approvals when new commits are pushed
- restrict who can push directly to
master
At minimum, make sure workflow and release script changes cannot land without review.
8. Enforce CODEOWNERS Review
This repo now includes .github/CODEOWNERS, but GitHub only enforces it if branch protection requires code owner reviews.
In branch protection for master, enable:
Require review from Code Owners
Then verify the owner entries are correct for your actual maintainer set.
Current file:
.github/CODEOWNERS
If @cryppadotta is not the right reviewer identity in the public repo, change it before enabling enforcement.
9. Protect Release Infrastructure Specifically
These files should always trigger code owner review:
.github/workflows/release.ymlscripts/release.shscripts/release-lib.shscripts/release-package-map.mjsscripts/create-github-release.shscripts/rollback-latest.shdoc/RELEASING.mddoc/PUBLISHING.md
If you want stronger controls, add a repository ruleset that explicitly blocks direct pushes to:
.github/workflows/**scripts/release*
10. Do Not Store a Claude Token in GitHub Actions
Do not add a personal Claude or Anthropic token for automatic changelog generation.
Recommended policy:
- stable changelog generation happens locally from a trusted maintainer machine
- canaries never generate changelogs
This keeps LLM spending intentional and avoids a high-value token sitting in Actions.
11. Verify the Canary Workflow
After setup:
- merge a harmless commit to
master - open the
Releaseworkflow run triggered by that push - confirm it passes verification
- confirm publish succeeds under the
npm-canaryenvironment - confirm npm now shows a new
canaryrelease - confirm a git tag named
canary/vYYYY.MDD.P-canary.Nwas pushed
Install-path check:
npm install --prefix "$(mktemp -d)" paperclipai@canary --no-audit --no-fund
The release script runs this clean-prefix install after publishing every workspace
package dependency-first and publishing paperclipai last. A package that is not
yet registry-visible stops the train before the channel entrypoint can advance.
12. Verify the Stable Workflow
After at least one good canary exists:
- resolve the target stable version with
./scripts/release.sh stable --date YYYY-MM-DD --print-version - prepare
releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.mdon the source commit you want to promote - open
Actions->Release - run it with:
source_ref: the tested commit SHA or canary tag source commitstable_date: leave blank or set the intended UTC date like2026-03-18do not enter a version like2026.318.0; the workflow computes that from the datedry_run:true
- confirm the dry-run succeeds
- rerun with
dry_run: false - approve the
npm-stableenvironment when prompted - confirm npm
latestpoints to the new stable version - confirm git tag
vYYYY.MDD.Pexists - confirm the GitHub Release was created
Implementation note:
- the GitHub Actions stable workflow calls
create-github-release.shwithPUBLISH_REMOTE=origin - local maintainer usage can still pass
PUBLISH_REMOTE=public-ghexplicitly when needed
13. Suggested Maintainer Policy
Use this policy going forward:
- canaries are automatic and cheap
- stables are manual and approved
- only stables get public notes and announcements
- release notes are committed before stable publish
- rollback uses
npm dist-tag, not unpublish
14. Troubleshooting
Trusted publishing fails with an auth error
Check:
- the workflow filename on GitHub exactly matches the filename configured in npm
- the package has the trusted publisher entry for the correct repository
- the job has
id-token: write - the job is running from the expected repository, not a fork
Stable workflow runs but never asks for approval
Check:
- the
publishjob uses environmentnpm-stable - the environment actually has required reviewers configured
- the workflow is running in the canonical repository, not a fork
CODEOWNERS does not trigger
Check:
.github/CODEOWNERSis on the default branch- branch protection on
masterrequires code owner review - the owner identities in the file are valid reviewers with repository access
Related Docs
Runner verification dependency cache
release-verify.yml runs Verify Paperclip Runner on two independent runners.
The protocol lane runs check:eval-kernel and check:protocol. The Rust lane
runs check:runner and check:api-authority. Together they retain every check
in check:all; both lanes must pass before Cloud source verification or
readiness can succeed. A failed lane does not cancel the other lane.
Both lanes restore Cargo dependencies with the pinned Rust Cache action. The
compiler comes from the Runner package's rust-toolchain.toml before the action
computes its key. Compiler and Cargo metadata changes select a new cache. The
release-runner-v2 shared key avoids separate copies for these lanes.
Only the Rust lane saves this cache. After verification it also runs build:rust
to warm the debug dependencies used by the protocol lane; its own tests already
warm release dependencies. The cache writer is shorter than the protocol lane.
GitHub matches a cache entry on its key and on a version hash of the absolute
paths in the entry. The master writer runs on the RunsOn fleet, where the
checkout is /home/runner/_work/paperclip/paperclip. The trusted PR workflow
restores the same entry read-only on GitHub-hosted runners, where the checkout
is /home/runner/work/paperclip/paperclip. A Pin the Runner Rust workspace path step in both workflows links $HOME/paperclip-runner-rust to the Runner
crate and passes that path to the cache action, so both layouts hash the same
paths and the PR lanes can restore master's entry. The guard tests under
.github/scripts/tests/ require this step, with identical text, before every
Rust cache step in both workflows.
Workspace crates and installed Cargo binaries are excluded. Every run rebuilds workspace code and runs all assigned checks, including on a cache hit. Only an own-repository master-push run verifying that push's exact SHA can restore the cache, and only a successful Rust lane saves it. PR, tag, and manual candidate verification compile without this cache. A miss or eviction costs compilation time but does not change the checks. To discard old dependency caches, increment the shared-key version and let the next successful master verification warm it.
The trust boundary is the protected master branch, not the cache-key text. GitHub does not let master restore caches created by a child branch, sibling branch, tag, or PR merge ref. Both permitted restore scopes (current branch and default branch) are master here. A workflow with authority to execute arbitrary code on master can affect verification directly and is already trusted. The cache contains dependency build artifacts, not credentials or workspace output. See GitHub cache access restrictions.
Chat integration test shards
Release verification runs the large chat integration file on three independent
runners. Five other server shards cover every remaining general server file.
The ordinary local test command and trusted PR workflow keep their complete
general-server group. Each chat case shuts down its services, pauses its own
still-active endpoints, and retires its active/waiting conversations after
assertions. This keeps workers in later cases from claiming earlier
fixtures in the shared test database. Application assertions stay unchanged.
Each chat job collects active tests with Vitest, groups cases by source line, and balances those groups by case count. Parameterized cases and loop-generated cases on one line stay together. The job re-collects with the exact line filters it will execute and fails if the selected case identities differ. Hooks and test execution remain sequential inside each runner with its own temporary home.
Run one shard locally with:
pnpm test:run:general -- --group general-chat --shard-index 0 --shard-count 3
Use indexes 0, 1, and 2 to run the complete chat suite. The CLI validates that each shard has work and that collection includes usable source locations. A Vitest collection or filtering change fails verification instead of dropping tests. Splitting adds three release-verification jobs and repeats collection and fixture setup; it does not make a single test faster.
The file-duration manifest also records the native Codex Runner integration suite's measured import and execution cost, so the existing file balancer accounts for it in both ordinary PR and release verification.
Cloud readiness runner placement
When AWS routing is enabled, Cloud image builds use paperclip-cloud-build-x64
and source verification uses paperclip-post-merge-x64. The artifact wait and
the Cloud source verified v1 and Cloud deployable v1 marker jobs run on
GitHub-hosted runners. These small jobs must not hold or wait for capacity in
the source-verification fleet. During a merge
burst, even a completed build must wait for its marker before consumers can
recognize readiness.
Runner placement does not change readiness requirements: exact-source artifacts, all source checks, and the image verification must still pass. The versioned markers and their dependency gates are unchanged.