Files
PaperClipAI/doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md
T
Devin FoleyandPaperclip d2e940f4c1 ci: run release Runner protocol and Rust checks in parallel (#13326)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip Cloud deploys verified images from merged source commits.
> - Cloud readiness waits for every release verification check.
> - Runner verification currently runs long TypeScript tests before Rust
checks.
> - These checks can run on independent runners with their own build
directories.
> - This PR runs them in parallel while preserving all checks and the
shared dependency cache.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #13194. Related prior work: #13142 and #13259. A search found no
duplicate parallel release-check change.

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

Time from merge to Cloud source verification and deployment readiness.

**Current behavior**

Recent successful runs take roughly 13 minutes from merge to deployable.
In run 34705914878, Runner verification took 11m23s. Protocol tests
finished before Rust tests and API authority checks started.

**Proposed behavior**

Run protocol and Rust verification in two matrix jobs. Cloud readiness
still requires both jobs to pass.

**Reason and benefit**

Remove the serial dependency between independent checks. Expected
improvement is about 2–3 minutes on a typical cached run, until the
image build or server tests become the longest job. This is an estimate;
post-merge timing will confirm it.

**Breaking changes**

Individual release Runner job names gain a lane suffix. Cloud source and
readiness marker names stay the same. PR runner routing is unchanged.

## What Changed

- Split release Runner checks into protocol and Rust lanes. Keep every
constituent of `check:all` exactly once.
- Restore the existing Rust dependency cache in both lanes. Allow only
the Rust lane to save it after warming both build profiles.
- Add coverage and cache authorization regressions. Document the
parallel verification and single cache writer.

## Verification

- Passed 477 workflow and source-verification tests with `node --test
.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs
scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs
scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`.
- Passed `actionlint`, `git diff --check`, and the private AWS routing
regression suite.
- Passed local `pnpm -r typecheck` and the standalone `check:runner &&
check:api-authority` lane, including all 1,671 API tests before the
protocol lane had built TypeScript output.
- The broad local protocol run under Node 25 had four failures. The two
affected files passed under CI's Node 24.19.0: 67 passed, 6 platform
skips.
- Local `pnpm test:run` aborted when disk space ran out; local `pnpm
build` could not run afterward. These are local verification limits.
[Linux CI run
34710421424](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34710421424)
passed full typecheck, all grouped tests, native verification, build,
release dry run, and browser checks. Native protocol CI passed 1,986
tests, plus 1,671 API tests and the Rust suites.
- Latest-head Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings. All 33 current-head
checks are successful or intentionally skipped.

## Risks

- Uses one additional short-lived verification runner per release
verification. The existing AWS exact-master restriction remains in
place.
- The Rust lane warms debug dependencies so its cache save also serves
protocol tests. Both lanes always rebuild workspace code.
- A workflow regression could omit a check. The new coverage test
compares the matrix checks directly with `check:all`; Cloud readiness
depends on the complete reusable workflow.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code
execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed
by this environment.

## 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>
2026-09-12 11:33:20 -07:00

14 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.yaml is refreshed by GitHub automation after manifest changes land on master
  • the publish jobs then restore pnpm-lock.yaml before running scripts/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:

  1. open npm as an owner of the package
  2. go to the package settings / publishing access area
  3. 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.yml workflow handles both canary and stable publishing
  • GitHub environments npm-canary and npm-stable still 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:

  1. add every non-private package to scripts/release-package-manifest.json
  2. set "publishFromCi": true only when CI is expected to publish that package
  3. if the package is not ready for CI publishing yet, keep "publishFromCi": false
  4. complete the package bootstrap before merging any PR that changes a release-enabled new package

Bootstrap sequence for a new package:

  1. publish the package once from a trusted maintainer machine using normal npm auth
  2. open that package on npm and add the paperclipai/paperclip trusted publisher for .github/workflows/release.yml
  3. rerun or dry-run the release flow as needed to confirm CI publishing now works
  4. 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:

  1. run a canary publish
  2. confirm npm publish succeeds without any NPM_TOKEN
  3. run a stable dry-run
  4. run one real stable publish

Only after that should you remove old token-based access.

3. Remove Legacy npm Tokens

After trusted publishing works:

  1. revoke any repository or organization NPM_TOKEN secrets used for publish
  2. revoke any personal automation token that used to publish Paperclip
  3. 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-canary
  • npm-beta
  • npm-stable

Path:

  1. GitHub repository
  2. Settings
  3. Environments
  4. New 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 master should 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: beta dispatch. 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:

  1. require pull requests before merging
  2. require status checks to pass before merging
  3. require review from code owners
  4. dismiss stale approvals when new commits are pushed
  5. 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.yml
  • scripts/release.sh
  • scripts/release-lib.sh
  • scripts/release-package-map.mjs
  • scripts/create-github-release.sh
  • scripts/rollback-latest.sh
  • doc/RELEASING.md
  • doc/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:

  1. merge a harmless commit to master
  2. open the Release workflow run triggered by that push
  3. confirm it passes verification
  4. confirm publish succeeds under the npm-canary environment
  5. confirm npm now shows a new canary release
  6. confirm a git tag named canary/vYYYY.MDD.P-canary.N was 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:

  1. resolve the target stable version with ./scripts/release.sh stable --date YYYY-MM-DD --print-version
  2. prepare releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md on the source commit you want to promote
  3. open Actions -> Release
  4. run it with:
    • source_ref: the tested commit SHA or canary tag source commit
    • stable_date: leave blank or set the intended UTC date like 2026-03-18 do not enter a version like 2026.318.0; the workflow computes that from the date
    • dry_run: true
  5. confirm the dry-run succeeds
  6. rerun with dry_run: false
  7. approve the npm-stable environment when prompted
  8. confirm npm latest points to the new stable version
  9. confirm git tag vYYYY.MDD.P exists
  10. confirm the GitHub Release was created

Implementation note:

  • the GitHub Actions stable workflow calls create-github-release.sh with PUBLISH_REMOTE=origin
  • local maintainer usage can still pass PUBLISH_REMOTE=public-gh explicitly 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:

  1. the workflow filename on GitHub exactly matches the filename configured in npm
  2. the package has the trusted publisher entry for the correct repository
  3. the job has id-token: write
  4. the job is running from the expected repository, not a fork

Stable workflow runs but never asks for approval

Check:

  1. the publish job uses environment npm-stable
  2. the environment actually has required reviewers configured
  3. the workflow is running in the canonical repository, not a fork

CODEOWNERS does not trigger

Check:

  1. .github/CODEOWNERS is on the default branch
  2. branch protection on master requires code owner review
  3. the owner identities in the file are valid reviewers with repository access

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 existing release-runner-v1 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.

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.