DottaandPaperclip
f3cd3f4ea8
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Remote runs need one runner to own their process identity and listener. > - A health request can fail while that runner continues to work. > - The active monitor treated a failed request as a process exit. > - Recovery could then launch another runner against the occupied listener. > - This pull request retries health reads and requires proof of exit before replacement. > - A brief outage can recover on the same runner without replaying agent work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16341 adds remote recovery diagnostics. Refs: #16686 retries verification when restoring a saved remote session. This change applies the shared probe policy to active process supervision. **What happened?** The active remote monitor settled its completion promise after a timed-out or rejected health request. The transport treated that result as an exit and started process recovery. An existing runner could still own the listener. Replacement then failed with `runner_ingress_bind_conflict` until the reconnect deadline expired. Missing or changed ownership markers also did not prove that the old process had exited. **Expected behavior** Retry transient read failures on the same runner. Require a matching ownership marker and proof of process exit before replacement. Preserve uncertainty when identity or liveness cannot be verified. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a remote runner and leave its listener alive. 2. Make one process-health request time out or reject. 3. Observe completion and the restart decision. Before this change, the monitor settles while the process is alive, and the restart wrapper permits another launch. **Paperclip version or commit** The defect was reproduced on master at `6e89919631`. The patch is based on current master at `c6a0cf4bce`. ## What Changed - Reuse the bounded read-only recovery probe for active supervision. Retry up to three reads within 30 seconds. - Check the saved process generation when available. Accept only the specific process-not-running receipt as exit proof. - Add an exit-confirmation contract to remote process handles. Require it for restart and shutdown completion. Preserve the cause of supervision errors. - Test transient failures, exhausted retries, conflicting identities, real listening processes, and an authenticated runner with a fake provider. Keep confirmed-exit replacement covered. - Document the recovery policy and coverage limits in the execution contract and maps. ## Verification - Red: the timeout and transport-error regressions failed before the patch because completion settled while the runner was alive. The restart-guard regression also failed because replacement was allowed. - Green: 14 server supervision cases passed, including a real listening process. All 120 shared control-plane tests passed. Focused Runner tests passed for authenticated live-runner fault injection and confirmed-exit replacement. - Review regression: a replacement-health test first failed because its error cause was lost. It passed after preserving the cause and detail. The four affected transport cases and Runner typecheck then passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed for 35 areas and 176 capability IDs. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. The sequential local full-suite run was stopped before completion; no local full-suite pass is claimed. Final commit `bcc1b1d339` passed the complete CI matrix: 55 checks passed and two optional Storybook checks were skipped. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved conversations. The PR has no merge conflicts. - The first real-listener attempt could not bind inside the execution sandbox. The same test passed with local socket access. The first package-test invocation used the root configuration and selected no tests; the package configuration ran all selected tests. - CI attempt 1: nine test jobs were cancelled together at 12:54:59 UTC. Their test steps report cancellation. The build and uninterrupted jobs passed. The interrupted jobs were retried once. That retry exposed one confirmed-exit message assertion failure in the Runner shard; the other jobs passed. The compatibility correction preserves the prior message. The failing case and four recovery cases then passed locally. The complete CI matrix passed after that correction. - No live sandbox restoration, deployment, or historical task recovery is claimed. ## Risks - A persistent outage now ends supervision with explicit exit uncertainty. It cannot authorize a competing process. Existing ownership and workspace recovery checks remain required. - Health reads can take up to 30 seconds before reporting an unavailable runner. Retries are read-only and bounded. - Local launchers keep their existing completion contract. No database migration or public API change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving snapshot and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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>
Paperclip feature map
Start here when reproducing a user-facing bug, verifying a change, or deciding which surfaces a fix must cover. Each recipe describes what a person can do, where they can do it, the expected result, and the evidence needed to verify it. Product behavior is still governed by the implementation spec.
The sibling agent access map records APIs, agent entry points and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. Follow the shared map contract when maintaining either map.
Browse features
Open the published Storybook guide for the assembled feature and capability index. The Markdown recipes in this directory are the authored source. Each has a same-named agent-access companion.
Run node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs to generate local navigation in
maps/generated/feature-map.md, maps/generated/agent-access-map.md, and the
Storybook guide. A new recipe is discovered automatically; do not register it in
this README or maintain counts here.
Before driving a journey
- Use this checkout's isolated test drive for manual product checks. It creates a temporary instance and prints its URL and data directory. Do not guess that a server on port 3100 belongs to you.
- Record the commit, URL, company, login role, relevant experimental settings, adapter, runtime mode, and live versus simulated dependencies. Use disposable tasks and provider resources. A fresh test drive creates a company and CEO, but no task or first run.
- Use the current navigation and company prefix. Paths in recipes omit that prefix. Record whether the streamlined or production shell is selected; Agent Chat, chat connectors, and the combined Inbox/Tasks view have separate gates. A hidden surface is an unmet prerequisite, not a successful test.
- Run the smallest relevant test first. Vitest commands below run from the repository root after installing dependencies. Playwright recipes use their named configuration and its isolated environment, not an unrelated running instance. Reserve expensive runner/provider tests for the behavior at issue.
- Exercise the actual user action, inspect its result, reload, and verify the persisted state or continuation. Use read-only API checks to corroborate UI evidence; creating state through the API does not prove the creation UI.
For agent-driven acceptance work, start with the Paperclip verification skill for an isolated launch, ownership/readiness checks, browser driving, evidence, and cleanup. It uses this directory as its feature map. The existing dev-workspace run/verify skill and evaluation skill describe runtime ownership and evidence handling. Reuse them; this map introduces no environment launcher, credentials, scheduled job, or second test framework.
Evidence contract
Report each entry point as passed, failed, blocked (with its missing prerequisite), or not run. Include the feature filename and entry-point ID, commit/environment, user action, expected and observed result, command/exit code, and evidence links. Screenshots or traces should show both the action and the discriminating result. Include task/run/request IDs when relevant, without secrets.
A fix is verified across its affected surfaces only when each has evidence or an explicit reason it does not apply. Shared code alone does not prove parity. Keep product regressions visible; do not change the recipe to bless a failure. For Paperclip-assigned work, attach evidence through the artifact workflow.
Inventory and remaining depth
The generated maps/generated/coverage.json lists the current non-test TSX page
modules and the recipes that directly reference each one. An unreferenced module
is a documentation candidate, not proof that its feature is absent or untested.
Remaining workflow limits live in each recipe. Inventory and example associations
describe documentation scope, not runtime health.
Maintaining the reference
The map documents user journeys. It does not execute them automatically; generated inventories record documentation scope rather than live test health.
When maintaining a recipe, compare its entry points and expected results with
the current source. Check that linked tests still exercise the stated behavior
and that local references still exist. Keep the same-named agent access companion
and stable sub-feature IDs aligned when behavior or access changes. Source-only
access inventory remains distinct from live verification. Run
node scripts/check-maps.mjs after map edits for structural/reference checks;
follow the shared contract for the source and behavioral checks it cannot perform.
Each recipe starts with a small frontmatter navigation record, then an H1:
---
navigation: {"section":"Tasks and conversations","sectionOrder":20,"order":10}
---
The H1 supplies the feature title, and the first paragraph supplies its summary. Orders are local to the section; leave gaps for additions. Equal orders use the stable filename as a tie-breaker. Keep a section's name/order consistent across its recipes. A new feature or capability needs only its recipe and companion.
Optional ### Storybook verification guidance lives inside the recipe's Gotchas
section. Each level-four heading contains a backtick-quoted capability key and
has Scope (ui, cli, or browser),
Storybook, Production, and Sources fields. These are verification instructions
and intentional scope limits, not run results or a required story for every API.
The generated gap report combines this guidance with current story associations.
After frontmatter, each recipe starts with an H1 and a user-visible description, then exactly:
- Sub-features — stable backticked IDs and observable behavior/states.
- How to get to it (user POV) — one H3 backticked entry-point ID per surface.
- Driving it with — starts with
Preconditions:; repeat each entry-point H3, withAutomated:andManual:paragraphs. Name test scope and gaps honestly. - Gotchas — misleading look-alikes, feature gates, and invalid evidence.
New or updated entries follow
Poteto's feature-map examples.
Existing entries with a Driving it heading can adopt the named harness when
their recipes are updated. The original format was inspired by
Omnigent's feature map.
Paperclip's recipes and checks follow its own task model and test infrastructure.