mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
Dotta
07b6816829
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Pull request checks protect the quality of the control plane > - The current checks depend only on the shared GitHub-hosted runner limit > - Busy periods leave many pull request jobs queued even when external capacity is available > - Public pull request code must not select or directly access private runner infrastructure > - This pull request adds an inactive reusable workflow with a fail-closed identity gate > - A later pull request can pin this workflow by its full master commit SHA > - The benefit is automatic, controlled access to isolated runner capacity without changing current CI during bootstrap ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves the pull request CI workflow. It prepares the existing checks to use an administrator-controlled runner selection. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting GitHub Actions CI configuration. **Current behavior** Every pull request job uses `ubuntu-latest`. Jobs wait when the GitHub-hosted concurrency limit is full. **Proposed behavior** Add a reusable copy of the current PR workflow. A GitHub-hosted gate validates durable numeric user IDs and current GitHub API state. The gate emits one runner label. The default and every validation failure use `ubuntu-latest`. The AWS label is possible only when an administrator enables it and every identity check passes. This bootstrap pull request does not change the active `.github/workflows/pr.yml` caller. A follow-up change will call this workflow by the full master commit SHA. **Reason and benefit** The split bootstrap creates an immutable trust boundary before external runners are reachable. It also keeps CI automatic for contributors. Contributors do not select a runner. **Breaking changes** None in this bootstrap pull request. The active PR workflow does not change. ## What Changed - Added an inactive `workflow_call` copy of the current PR checks. - Added a GitHub-hosted routing gate that checks the repository ID, pull request author ID, event sender ID, rerun actor ID, base branch, head SHA, merge SHA, and current pull request state. - Made every validation failure select `ubuntu-latest`. - Pinned every third-party action to a full commit SHA. - Disabled persistent checkout credentials for all jobs. - Limited the workflow token to Actions read, contents read, and pull request read access. ## Verification - `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml` - Ran the dedicated workflow routing test harness against `.github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml`. - Compared the job keys with `.github/workflows/pr.yml`. The new workflow contains every existing job plus the gate. - Verified each pinned action commit against its current GitHub major-version tag. ## Risks The gate could route a trusted pull request to the wrong runner if an identity check is incomplete. The gate checks durable numeric IDs from the event and current GitHub API state. It checks the rerun actor separately. It defaults to GitHub-hosted capacity before any validation runs. This file is inactive in this pull request. The follow-up caller and runner-group restriction must use the exact commit that reaches `master`. > 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 based on GPT-5. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this environment. The model used high-reasoning, terminal, GitHub API, browser, and web-research capabilities. ## 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