mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-22 16:51:28 +02:00
Dotta
300b7f4b7e
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Semantic operations need a control plane that owns authorization and state changes > - Conformance tests need this authority without a live server or database > - The existing in-memory port covers transport facts but not capability-governed domains > - This pull request adds a deterministic capability-aware control plane for tests > - It keeps the implementation behind the package testing entry point > - The benefit is repeatable authorization and mutation tests before production wiring lands ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** packages/paperclip-runner testing and semantic capability contracts **Problem or motivation** Later semantic action slices need deterministic company, actor, task, governance, workspace, secret, budget, routine, and audit state. A live Paperclip server would make those tests slow and environment-dependent. **Proposed solution** Add serializable capability fixture types and an in-memory control-plane adapter. Enforce company scope, claims, roles, idempotency, redaction, faults, and audit records. Export the adapter only from the testing entry point. **Alternatives considered** The tests could mock each action separately. That would duplicate authorization rules and would not verify state transitions across multiple actions. **Roadmap alignment** This supports the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It does not enable production semantic operations or change app execution. ## What Changed - Add deterministic capability fixture types and seed state. - Add an in-memory capability control-plane adapter. - Enforce run, company, actor, claim, role, and idempotency boundaries. - Model governed task, document, interaction, workspace, secret, routine, and audit changes. - Add deterministic tests and testing-entry-point exports. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - The branch changes 5 files relative to its declared base. ## Risks The main risk is a permissive mock that hides a production authorization error. The adapter fails closed for missing claims, wrong roles, cross-company access, duplicate mutations, invalid state, and restricted secret access. Tests cover each fixture domain and serialized restore behavior. > 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, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## 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 linked an existing public issue or described the issue in-PR - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [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