## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Core owns Runner tasks through a lease-bound plugin owner.
> - The SDK already defines release and resume in #19468.
> - The owner still expects an accepted result for both operations, so
it cannot use those SDK results.
> - This pull request adds both methods behind the existing capability,
warm-task and account checks.
> - It uses the SDK parser to verify the result and task ID, and
preserves the owner's cancellation checks.
> - This prepares the owner boundary for later lifecycle integration. It
does not start automatic release or resume.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
The plugin Runner owner cannot forward the existing SDK release/resume
pair. Its local result mapping rejects their valid results. Later
lifecycle code needs both operations on the same checked task owner.
**Proposed solution**
Pass the existing description capability to the owner. Add explicit
release and resume methods and use the SDK's operation-result parser.
Require warm-task support and a selected account. Reject calls and late
receipts after owner cancellation or detachment.
**Alternatives considered**
Adding automatic release here would also require connection quieting,
settled-event drain, pending-ticket retry ownership and safe disposal.
Keep those changes together in the next integration. Do not add a new
flag, schema, timer or lifecycle mode here.
Related: #19468. I checked ROADMAP.md and found no duplicate planned
item. An open-PR title search for release/resume found no overlapping
pull request.
## What Changed
- Add the capability-gated owner facade for Codex and ACPX. Resume
returns only `resumed` or `unavailable`.
- Use the SDK parser for exact task-ID and operation-result validation.
- Pass `releaseResumeVersion` from the checked description and test that
it does not cause an automatic operation.
- Cover account-preserving owner rebind, missing prerequisites,
malformed results, ambiguous errors, cancellation and late replies.
- Document the caller's remaining settlement, connection, ticket and
attachment duties.
## Verification
Passed locally on Node 26.12.0 with the pinned workspace dependencies:
- In `server/`: `pnpm exec vitest run
src/services/native-runtime/plugin-runner-task.test.ts` — 74 tests
passed.
- In `server/`: `pnpm exec vitest run
src/services/native-runtime/native-session-executor.test.ts -t 'uses a
task-only'` — 3 cases passed; 1,160 unrelated cases were not selected.
- Built the real workspace SDK dependencies and Runner TypeScript. A
focused strict TypeScript program for the owner and its tests passed.
- `git diff --check` and the added-line secret/PII scan passed.
The first root test command selected a nonexistent Vitest project name
and ran no tests. Running the test from the server package fixed the
command. The first focused TypeScript setup could not find Node types;
pointing it to the package's installed type definitions fixed that
setup. The full regression suite and release checks run in GitHub.
## Risks
The facade has no automatic caller. Existing warm timeout, bootstrap,
outbound connection and pool behavior stay in place. No plugin
capability is advertised or task control channel enabled by this pull
request.
Future integration must serialize release with new work and disposal. It
must quiet the owned connection, keep the exact pending ticket after an
ambiguous reply, authenticate the source again and finish ordinary run
attachment before new work. This change does not qualify provider
parking, cold recovery, retention policy or deployment.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol, exact model ID `gpt-6.1-sol`, High reasoning. Used
code execution and targeted tests. The context-window size was not
exposed.
## 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>
