DottaandPaperclip 3a2249dd57 fix(runner): retry proven ingress bootstrap failures (#18981)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Native execution must retain its admitted model and execution
authority during recovery.
> - A sandbox provider can reject Runner endpoint acquisition before the
Runner gets a credential.
> - The old error path loses the structured HTTP status and leaves that
startup failure ambiguous.
> - A zero counter in an old checkpoint cannot prove that no credential
was issued.
> - This pull request adds a versioned producer proof and carries closed
provider status through the existing RPC.
> - A proved transient startup failure uses the existing retry budget. A
terminal proved-unused run can settle its accounting.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #18018 and #18934. Those changes restore existing checkpoints and
ready retained environments. This change covers endpoint acquisition
before Runner dispatch. A search of related public PRs found no
duplicate implementation.

**What happened?**

A provider HTTP 502 during Runner endpoint acquisition becomes an
untyped worker error. Native recovery treats it as ambiguous and stops
without retrying. The run's native usage receipt also stays pending
after startup ends without model work.

**Expected behavior**

Retry a structured transient endpoint failure only when the complete
current controller checkpoint proves that this exact run never issued a
Runner credential. Preserve authentication, configuration, Stop,
ownership and provider-progress gates. Settle zero usage only under the
existing terminal accounting owner.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Use the controlled endpoint in the Daytona ingress integration test
to return HTTP 502.
2. Register the actual native Runner driver and persist its bootstrap
journal through the encrypted checkpoint writer.
3. Observe the old terminal ambiguous disposition instead of bounded
startup recovery.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Reproduced on the pre-change master source. The original regression used
the production native driver, a real HTTP fault, a real durable control
plane and local Postgres. The new contract additionally tests the pinned
Daytona SDK and real worker RPC.

## What Changed

- The controller owns a v2 persisted state with retained origin and
credential history. Current readers still accept v1. Older writers
reject v2. Restore and checkpoint decoding do not add missing history.
- The proof validates the complete bootstrap journal, all six identity
fields and every delivery, credential and progress control. The server
rechecks its fingerprint under the current controller claim before retry
or accounting changes.
- Daytona and the SDK carry a closed acquisition phase and HTTP status
through the existing ingress RPC. Both public error wrappers omit
response bodies and causes, including Pino cause serialization.
- Only structured HTTP 429 or 5xx ingress failures can use the existing
three-attempt startup budget. HTTP 401/403, configuration and unknown
errors do not gain retry authority.
- A terminal proved-unused run wakes existing accounting and records
zero provider work. It does not create a semantic result, prove physical
termination or release an unknown process/workspace hold.
- The normal automatic second attempt rechecks its exact claim, frozen
execution and matching complete local/encrypted journal before admitting
absent remote Runner state. It keeps the original pending bootstrap
command IDs. A proved unused Codex home can rematerialize sealed skills.
Full raw local state is checked before streaming-event or policy
projection.
- Normal saved-state readers and the existing E2E journal evidence
matcher accept the closed v1/v2 set. The separate legacy no-launch
witness is unchanged. Technical docs describe the contracts.

## Verification

Current head: `cd38f70409cdb8664e14bfbf4efa208f468a0419` (final delta
adds only fixture artifact preparation). Production files are unchanged
from the independently reviewed `93c8a33520` source. Full repository
typecheck and build passed at `96417acb58`; the affected server
typecheck also passes after the final two-line fixture delta. Focused
protocol, raw-proof, real retry, SDK and RPC acceptance pass on this
source. Earlier broad suite counts are listed with their limits below:

- Durable Runner protocol: 187 tests.
- Native executor, driver, startup/accounting and redaction: 1,211
tests, including real Postgres and encrypted checkpoint persistence.
- Normal saved-state restore/projection compatibility: 21 focused cases.
- SDK: 209 tests.
- Standalone Daytona: 544 tests; 8 opt-in live tests skipped.
- Explicit standalone `pnpm -C
packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona exec vitest run --config
vitest.sdk-ingress.config.ts`: 6 cases with real pinned SDK 0.203.0 and
worker RPC ingress acceptance. These include lookup 502/401/403/400,
private-preview 502 after successful lookup/refresh, missing credentials
and private-response exclusion.
- E2E journal evidence: 4 cases across both supported formats, with
wrong ownership, missing stimulus and unknown-schema controls.
- The exact historical controller source rejects a new v2 checkpoint at
decode and restore. A v1 control is accepted. This verifies the
downgrade fence with the actual older parser.
- Startup controls cover issued and pruned credentials, old/truncated
journals, provider progress, exhausted retry accounting, and
checkpoint/Stop/controller-claim races. Race cases retain the current
execution and pending usage.
- New exact admission controls: 19 cases through encrypted persistence
and cold restore. They cover current/stale/expired claims, Stop, pause,
model/trust/account changes, prior progress, issued/pruned credentials,
adopted/old/truncated state, local/canonical fingerprint mismatch,
hidden delivery, unsupported work and company scope. Two additional
red/green cases prove that raw local stream progress and missing event
policy are rejected before lossy checkpoint projection. No case mutates
run, claim, result or accounting state.
- Actual native executor, scheduler and Rust Runner retry: 2 cases.
Codex uses its fake app server. OpenCode uses the real proxy and fake
OpenCode HTTP server with the frozen DeepSeek model and allow permission
configuration. Each path launches no Runner on attempt 1, starts one
Runner and provider on attempt 2, reuses both original command IDs,
commits one accepted result, validates the persisted local workspace,
records nonzero synthetic native usage and settles accounting once. No
zero-work accounting flag survives.

The controlled SDK and protocol tests use local source, isolated
PostgreSQL, a private HTTPS preview and fake provider servers on macOS
arm64 with Node 24.22.2. They create no hosted sandbox and make no model
call. The root workspace intentionally omits standalone provider
dependencies; the explicit SDK target fails if its pinned dependency is
absent and has no conditional skip. They do not qualify hosted rollout
or repair an old unmarked checkpoint. The first full local typecheck
found missing checkout SDK links from an install with scripts disabled;
the repository link helper repaired that setup.

Current-head Linux CI typecheck and build pass. Independent final review
checked 12 source scopes and six raw-proof controls with no remaining
finding. Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 with no unresolved thread.

The full Runner CI suite found two older control-peer test doubles
missing the new proof method. Both now return no proof, with all 27
permission, ordering and cancellation assertions retained and passing.
The new Cargo-dependent native retry suite uses the existing Rust-cached
CI lane. All 39 lane coverage controls pass and prove complete,
duplicate-free suite coverage. The first full test run stopped at an
admitted chat Retry polling failure. CI also found a stale
retained-allocation fixture, now repaired on master by #18984, and a
canceled runner job. A real SDK suite initially relied on a dependency
absent from the root workspace; the explicit standalone target now owns
that acceptance.

The separate Product E2E support run had 12 failures in four untouched
files. All 12 reproduce on the original clean base with independent
dependencies, compiled base source and verified workspace resolution.
These concern workflow expectations, cleanup timeout arguments, a
profile snapshot and operating receipts. They are not passing
acceptance.

The later full local repository test command stopped at a 15-second
timeout in the unchanged GitHub pre-allocation retry `controller` case.
That exact case passed in isolation with unchanged assertions. The broad
Runner run initially omitted `test:typescript:prep` and lacked debug
fake-provider binaries. Required preparation then passed 370 + 44
package contract cases (11 skipped); the prepared full package run
reported 4,932 passed, 9 failed and 13 skipped. All failed families then
passed with unchanged assertions in isolation: 8 ACPX controller tests
and 2 credential controls. The paired original-base ACPX control also
passed. The full-run failures remain recorded; they are not passing
full-suite evidence.

The first Rust-cached native CI run found a missing generated OpenCode
proxy in a fresh checkout. The fixture now runs the existing verified
provider-entrypoint builder. Removing the generated proxy reproduces the
exact ENOENT before the fix; both real retry cases pass after the fix
from the same absent-artifact state.

All current-head CI gates pass, including the aggregate verification
check. Linux native CI passes all 10 suites: 177 tests pass and 14
opt-in cases skip. Both real provider retry cases pass. The full Runner
package passes 297 suites and 4,950 tests, with 1 suite and 10 tests
skipped. The CLI workspace groups pass 4,762 and 286 tests. The first CI
attempt had Runner shutdowns in the Runner package, Canary and three
general server jobs. One unchanged CLI shard also hit child-server
startup and dense ZIP deadlines. Both CLI files passed unchanged in
isolation: 18 tests. One bounded rerun of unsuccessful jobs and their
dependents passed. The original failures remain recorded.

## Risks

- Older controllers reject newly written v2 state on downgrade. Current
controllers retain v1 restore support, but old or unmarked state cannot
gain this new proof.
- An older plugin that omits structured ingress evidence remains held.
The server and provider must use the new producer contract for this
recovery path. The Docker `cloud` target builds the SDK, server/Runner
and standalone Daytona producer from one source tree. The default
`production` target does not build the standalone producer. Hosted
rollout must confirm the new image and active image-owned plugin worker;
a registry version alone does not prove its source. An npm-installed
producer needs an explicit matching artifact upgrade.
- This prevents future proved startup failures. It does not release
historical accounting based on an old checkpoint, change retry budgets,
replace a model or weaken sandbox isolation.
- Zero model usage is separate from process termination, saved files and
resource release. Those owners keep their existing gates.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex with tool use and code execution. This runtime does not
expose the exact backend model ID or context window to the agent.
Read-only independent agents reviewed checkpoint compatibility and
SDK/RPC error boundaries.

## 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 (affected suites; full
local run limits are recorded above)
- [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>
2026-11-04 12:16:51 -06:00
2026-03-07 02:57:28 +09:00

Paperclip is the app people use to manage AI agents for work.

Quickstart · Docs · GitHub · Discord · Twitter · Website

MIT License Stars Discord Security posture verified by Superagent

Star History Rank


Sign up for the Paperclip Cloud waitlist →


Paperclip is the app people use to manage AI agents for work.

Open-source orchestration for teams of AI agents.

If OpenClaw is an employee, Paperclip is the company.

Paperclip is a Node.js server and React UI that orchestrates a team of AI agents to run a business. Bring your own agents, assign goals, and track work and costs from one dashboard. Choose models and harnesses per agent while keeping your team's tasks, skills, permissions, and history in one place.

It looks like a task manager. Under the hood: org charts, budgets, governance, goal alignment, and agent coordination.

Manage business goals, not pull requests.

Step Example
01 Define the goal "Build the #1 AI note-taking app to $1M MRR."
02 Hire the team CEO, CTO, engineers, designers, marketers — any bot, any provider.
03 Approve and run Review strategy. Set budgets. Hit go. Monitor from the dashboard.

Works
with
OpenClaw
OpenClaw
Claude Code
Claude Code
Codex
Codex
Cursor and Cursor Cloud
Cursor
+ Cloud
Gemini CLI
Gemini CLI
OpenCode
OpenCode
Pi
Pi
Hermes and Hermes Gateway
Hermes
+ Gateway
Grok Build
Grok Build
Kimi Code
Kimi Code

If it can receive a heartbeat, it's hired.

Custom processes, HTTP endpoints, and external adapter packages extend the roster. See the adapter overview for setup and capabilities.


Paperclip is right for you if

  • ✅ You want to build autonomous AI organizations
  • ✅ You coordinate many different agents (OpenClaw, Codex, Claude, Cursor) toward a common goal
  • ✅ You have 20 simultaneous Claude Code terminals open and lose track of what everyone is doing
  • ✅ You want agents running autonomously 24/7, but still want to audit work and chime in when needed
  • ✅ You want to monitor costs and enforce budgets
  • ✅ You want a process for managing agents that feels like using a task manager
  • ✅ You want to manage your autonomous businesses from your phone

The four pillars

Four things have to work for an organization of AI agents to actually produce: the tasks, the org, the training, and the infrastructure. Paperclip is built around exactly those four pillars.

The four pillars of Paperclip
Pillar Built for What it covers
Agentic Task Manager — Declare intent. Agents work. You verify the output. Everyone, daily Tasks, approvals & review gates · proactive agent coworkers · auditable routines & workflows · verify from diffs, screenshots & tests
Org Chart for Agents — Roles, permissions & boundaries for humans and agents. Managers Mixed human + agent org chart · responsibilities, delegation, specialization · governance: who can do what · scoped secrets & company boundaries · connection permissions & responsible-user identities
Agent Employee Training — Design, train & evaluate your AI employees. Enablers Skill Studio & shared org-wide skills · evals & saved test runs · active learning loops & quality metrics · performance reviews for agents · saved test inputs · skill version history & restore · reusable team templates
Agentic OS — The infrastructure that makes the work run. IT & platform Cross-provider runtime: any model, any agent · sandboxing, integrations & MCP servers · SSO, GRC, RBAC & cost controls · data privacy, internal trace collection, compounding data value · personal & shared app connections · run history & opt-in tracing

Features

🔌 Bring Your Own Agent

Any agent, any runtime, one org chart. If it can receive a heartbeat, it's hired.

🎯 Goal Alignment

Link tasks and projects to your organization goals. Agents receive the goal context behind their work.

💓 Heartbeats

Agents wake for assigned work, follow-up messages, or configured schedules. Delegation flows up and down the org chart.

💰 Cost Control

Company, agent, and project budgets. Track reported spend, get threshold alerts, and pause work at configured limits.

🏢 Multi-Organization

One deployment, many organizations. Separate tasks, agents, permissions, and activity histories for each.

🎫 Task Threads

Keep conversations, plans, blockers, files, and run history attached to the work. Assign tasks to agents or people.

🛡️ Governance

Configure review and approval stages, approve hires, and pause, reassign, or stop work when needed.

📊 Org Chart

Hierarchies, roles, reporting lines. Your agents have a boss, a title, and a job description.

📱 Mobile Ready

Monitor and manage your autonomous businesses from anywhere.

🔗 Apps & Connections

Connect services such as GitHub, Notion, and Railway, or your own MCP server. Set gateway actions to Allowed, Ask first, or Off.

👥 Shared Agents, Personal Accounts

Choose who can use a connection and which agents can access it. Managed GitHub operations can use the account of the person directing the work.

🧠 Skills & Skill Studio

Install or write shared skills, test them with saved inputs, inspect results, and restore earlier versions.

📅 Scheduled Routines

Run recurring work on a schedule or trigger it through an API or webhook. Each run has a task, an owner, and a history.

📎 Artifacts & Feedback

Find the files and documents agents produce. Preview supported formats and leave comments on specific passages in documents.

📦 Ready-Made Teams

Preview and install teams with roles, skills, projects, and routines. Choose their runtimes and make the setup your own.

Experimental Agent Chat and chat/email connectors add conversations with agents in Paperclip and through configured services such as Slack, Discord, Telegram, and AgentMail. Enable the relevant instance settings to try them.


Problems Paperclip solves

Without Paperclip With Paperclip
❌ You have 20 Claude Code tabs open and can't track which one does what. On reboot you lose everything. ✅ Tasks are ticket-based, conversations are threaded, sessions persist across reboots.
❌ You manually gather context from several places to remind your bot what you're actually doing. ✅ Context flows from the task up through the project and company goals — your agent always knows what to do and why.
❌ Folders of agent configs are disorganized and you're re-inventing task management, communication, and coordination between agents. ✅ Paperclip gives you org charts, ticketing, delegation, and governance out of the box — so you run a company, not a pile of scripts.
❌ Runaway loops waste hundreds of dollars of tokens and max your quota before you even know what happened. ✅ Spend tracking, budget alerts, and automatic pauses help you control the cost of ongoing work.
❌ You have recurring jobs (customer support, social, reports) and have to remember to manually kick them off. ✅ Routines create assigned tasks on a schedule, with outputs and run history you can inspect.
❌ You have an idea, you have to find your repo, fire up Claude Code, keep a tab open, and babysit it. ✅ Add a task in Paperclip. Your coding agent works on it until it's done. Management reviews their work.

Why Paperclip is special

Paperclip handles the hard orchestration details correctly.

Atomic task checkout. A single assignee and execution locks prevent competing runs from claiming the same task.
Persistent work context. Tasks, comments, and documents stay in Paperclip. Supporting adapters resume saved sessions across runs.
Runtime skill injection. Agents can learn Paperclip workflows and project context at runtime, without retraining.
Governance with rollback. Approval gates are enforced, config changes are revisioned, and bad changes can be rolled back safely.
Accountable connections. Human access, agent eligibility, and gateway action permissions are separate controls. Approve a call once or save a revocable rule.
Goal-aware execution. Linked tasks and projects carry goal ancestry so agents see the "why," not just a title.
Portable company templates. Export/import orgs, agents, and skills with secret scrubbing and collision handling.
Organization boundaries. Company-scoped access checks keep each organization's work, agents, and activity separate within one deployment.

What's Under the Hood

Paperclip is a full control plane, not a wrapper. Before you build any of this yourself, know that it already exists:

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                       PAPERCLIP SERVER                       │
│                                                              │
│  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  │
│  │Identity & │  │  Work &   │  │ Heartbeat │  │Governance │  │
│  │  Access   │  │   Tasks   │  │ Execution │  │& Approvals│  │
│  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  │
│                                                              │
│  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  │
│  │ Org Chart │  │Workspaces │  │  Plugins  │  │  Budget   │  │
│  │ & Agents  │  │ & Runtime │  │           │  │ & Costs   │  │
│  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  │
│                                                              │
│  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  ┌───────────┐  │
│  │ Routines  │  │ Secrets & │  │ Activity  │  │  Company  │  │
│  │& Schedules│  │  Storage  │  │ & Events  │  │Portability│  │
│  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
         ▲              ▲              ▲              ▲
   ┌─────┴─────┐  ┌─────┴─────┐  ┌─────┴─────┐  ┌─────┴─────┐
   │  Claude   │  │   Codex   │  │   CLI     │  │ HTTP/web  │
   │   Code    │  │           │  │  agents   │  │   bots    │
   └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘  └───────────┘

The Systems

Identity & Access — Two deployment modes (trusted local or authenticated), human roles and permissions, agent API keys, short-lived run JWTs, company memberships, and invite flows. Responsible-user attribution follows work through delegation and supported managed connections.

Org Chart & Agents — Agents have roles, titles, reporting lines, permissions, and budgets. Adapter examples match the diagram: Claude Code, Codex, CLI agents such as Cursor/Gemini/bash, HTTP/webhook bots such as OpenClaw, and external adapter plugins. If it can receive a heartbeat, it's hired.

Work & Task System — Issues carry company/project/goal/parent links, atomic checkout with execution locks, first-class blocker dependencies, comments, documents, attachments, work products, labels, and inbox state. Search across work, review document revisions, and leave anchored feedback.

Heartbeat Execution — DB-backed wakeup queue with coalescing, budget checks, workspace resolution, secret injection, skill loading, and adapter invocation. Runs produce logs, usage records, and adapter-specific session state. Bounded recovery handles supported failures and surfaces cases that need human action.

Workspaces & Runtime — Project repositories and workspaces, optional isolated execution workspaces (git worktrees, operator branches), and runtime services (dev servers, preview URLs). Sandbox providers extend execution beyond the local host; availability depends on the configured environment and adapter.

Governance & Approvals — Board approval workflows, execution policies with review/approval stages, decision tracking, budget hard-stops, and agent pause/resume/terminate. Configured task reviews govern completion; connection action approvals govern calls through the tool gateway.

Budget & Cost Control — Token and cost tracking by company, agent, project, goal, issue, provider, and model. Scoped budget policies with warning thresholds and hard stops. Enforcement uses recorded spend; usage reporting and in-flight work can delay a stop.

Routines & Schedules — Recurring tasks with cron, webhook, and API triggers. Concurrency and catch-up policies. Each routine execution creates a tracked issue and wakes the assigned agent — no manual kick-offs needed.

Plugins — Instance-wide plugin system with out-of-process workers, capability-gated host services, job scheduling, tool exposure, and UI contributions. Extend Paperclip without forking it.

Secrets & Storage — Company secrets and per-person secret values, encrypted credential storage, local or S3-compatible file storage, attachments, and work products. Secret references supply credentials to authorized runs without copying values into ordinary agent configuration.

Activity & Events — Mutating actions, heartbeat state changes, cost events, approvals, comments, and work products are recorded as durable activity so operators can audit what happened and why.

Company Portability — Preview, export, and import organization packages with agents, skills, and optional projects, routines, tasks, and attachments. Referenced secret values are omitted; review packages before sharing because plain environment values and local paths can remain. Packages share an operating setup; full-instance recovery uses backups.


What Paperclip is not

Not just a chatbot. Conversations stay attached to tasks, plans, decisions, and outputs. Experimental Agent Chat can hand work off to assigned tasks.
Not an agent framework. We don't tell you how to build agents. We tell you how to run a company made of them.
Not just a workflow builder. Routines operate within an organization, with roles, goals, budgets, and governance.
Not a prompt manager. Agents bring their own prompts, models, and runtimes. Paperclip manages the organization they work in.
Not limited to one agent. Start with one agent and grow into a team with shared skills, delegation, and review.
Not only for code review. Coding and PR review fit alongside research, operations, content, and other work.

Quickstart

Open source. Self-hosted. No Paperclip account required. Follow the guided quickstart to set up your first agent.

Just ask your agent to install Paperclip

Share the installation guide with your agent.

Or install it yourself

With Node.js 24.11 or newer installed:

npx paperclipai@latest onboard --yes

The CLI runs from npm's cache; your instance configuration and data persist locally.

See the installation guide for managed installs, pinned versions, canary and git-ref installs, updates, rollback, service management, and uninstalling.

For an isolated manual test instance that is already initialized with a CEO agent, use test-drive. It stays in the foreground, never installs a service or creates a first task, and opens the browser only after setup succeeds:

ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=... npx paperclipai test-drive
OPENAI_API_KEY=... npx paperclipai test-drive --harness codex
OPENROUTER_API_KEY=... npx paperclipai test-drive \
  --harness opencode \
  --model openrouter/anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Each run without --data-dir gets a unique, retained temporary directory; its absolute path is printed at startup. Pass --data-dir to reuse one, or --no-browser to leave the initialized instance unopened. When invoked from a linked Git worktree, test-drive also enables task execution in that worktree. See the test-drive guide for credential and reuse behavior.

Troubleshooting: private npm registry .npmrc

If this fails with an E404 for paperclipai (or similar) and you use a private npm registry (for example GitHub Packages) via a global ~/.npmrc, npx may be resolving paperclipai against that private registry instead of the public npm registry.

Diagnostic:

npm config get registry

Workaround (cross-platform; force the public npm registry for this command):

npx --registry https://registry.npmjs.org paperclipai@latest onboard --yes

That quickstart path now defaults to trusted local loopback mode for the fastest first run. To start in authenticated/private mode instead, choose a bind preset explicitly:

npx paperclipai@latest onboard --yes --bind lan
# or:
npx paperclipai@latest onboard --yes --bind tailnet

If you already have Paperclip configured, rerunning onboard keeps the existing config in place. Use npx paperclipai configure to edit settings.

Or manually:

git clone https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
cd paperclip
pnpm install
pnpm dev

This starts the UI and API at http://localhost:3100. An embedded PostgreSQL database is created automatically — no setup required.

Requirements: Node.js 24.11+, pnpm 9.15+

Local Claude and Codex subscription sign-in also needs Python 3 and the corresponding provider CLI on the Paperclip host. The Docker image includes them.

Source development also builds the native Paperclip Runner when enabled (the self-hosted default). Install a Rust toolchain, or set PAPERCLIP_RUNNER_BINARY to a compatible prebuilt runner.


FAQ

Q: Is this project maintained or just slop?

A: Paperclip is maintained by the Paperclip team. We've merged over 2,700 pull requests.


Q: What does a typical setup look like?

A: Locally, a single Node.js process manages an embedded Postgres and local file storage. For production, point it at your own Postgres and deploy however you like. Configure projects, agents, and goals — the agents take care of the rest.

For remote access, use authenticated mode with a private-network bind such as Tailscale, or deploy the persistent server with Docker. See deployment modes and the Docker guide.


Q: Can I run multiple companies?

A: Yes. A single deployment can host multiple organizations with company-scoped data and access checks.


Q: How is Paperclip different from agents like OpenClaw or Claude Code?

A: Paperclip uses those agents. It orchestrates them into a company — with org charts, budgets, goals, governance, and accountability.


Q: Why should I use Paperclip instead of just pointing my OpenClaw to Asana or Trello?

A: Agent orchestration has subtleties in how you coordinate who has work checked out, how to maintain sessions, monitoring costs, establishing governance - Paperclip does this for you.

(Bring-your-own-ticket-system is on the Roadmap)


Q: Do agents run continuously?

A: Agents wake for assigned work and follow-up messages. Optional timer heartbeats let them check for work periodically; routines create recurring tasks on their own schedules. You can also connect externally running agents such as OpenClaw. A mention alone does not assign work or wake another agent.


Development

pnpm dev              # Full dev (API + UI, watch mode)
pnpm dev:once         # Full dev without file watching
pnpm dev:server       # Server only
pnpm dev:mobile       # Serve prebuilt UI on :3101 for phones/tablets (proxies /api → :3100)
pnpm dev:both         # Run `pnpm dev` and `pnpm dev:mobile` together
pnpm build            # Build all
pnpm typecheck        # Type checking
pnpm test             # Cheap default test run (Vitest only)
pnpm test:watch       # Vitest watch mode
pnpm test:e2e         # Playwright browser suite
pnpm db:generate      # Generate DB migration
pnpm db:migrate       # Apply migrations

pnpm test does not run Playwright. Browser suites stay separate and are typically run only when working on those flows or in CI.

See doc/DEVELOPING.md for the full development guide.


Roadmap

  • ✅ Plugin system (e.g. add a knowledge base, custom tracing, queues, etc)
  • ✅ Get OpenClaw / claw-style agent employees
  • ✅ companies.sh - import and export entire organizations
  • ✅ Easy AGENTS.md configurations
  • ✅ Skills Manager, Skill Studio & Skills Store
  • ✅ Scheduled Routines
  • ✅ Better Budgeting
  • ✅ Agent Reviews and Approvals
  • ✅ Multiple Human Users
  • ✅ Cloud / Sandbox agents (e2b, Cloudflare, Daytona, Modal, Novita, boxd, self-hosted Kubernetes)
  • ✅ Artifacts & Work Products
  • ✅ Deep Planning (planning mode, revisioned plans, plan approvals)
  • ✅ Enforced Outcomes (watchdogs, recovery actions, review gates)
  • ✅ MCP Tool Gateway & Apps (governed tool access)
  • ✅ Secrets Manager with per-agent access
  • ✅ Activity log & action attribution
  • ✅ Self-healing runs & automatic recovery
  • ✅ Agent evals & feedback
  • ✅ Connected Apps
  • ✅ Personal & Shared AI Accounts
  • ✅ Shared Agents Use Personal GitHub Identities
  • ✅ Skill Version History & Restore
  • ✅ Document Comments & Revision History
  • ✅ Company-Wide Search
  • ✅ Multi-Model & Multi-Harness Teams
  • 🟡 Memory / Knowledge
  • ⚪ MAXIMIZER MODE
  • ⚪ Work Queues
  • ⚪ Self-Organization
  • ⚪ Automatic Organizational Learning
  • 🟡 Agent Chat
  • 🟡 Cloud deployments
  • ⚪ Desktop App
  • ⚪ Bring-your-own-ticket-system (Asana / Linear / Jira as on-ramps)

This is the short roadmap preview. See the full roadmap in ROADMAP.md.


Community & Plugins

Find Plugins and more at awesome-paperclip

Observability

Paperclip ships with opt-in OpenTelemetry auto-instrumentation for the server (traces only). It activates when OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT is set and supports grpc, http/protobuf, and http/json via the standard OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_PROTOCOL env var. @opentelemetry/api is a normal server dependency; the SDK, auto-instrumentation, and exporter packages are optional peer dependencies — install them only if you want tracing. See doc/observability.md for install commands and the full env-var reference.

Paperclip also ships with opt-in Sentry error monitoring for the server and the browser. Set SENTRY_DSN_FRONTEND to activate it for the browser and SENTRY_DSN_BACKEND to activate it for the server — each variable is optional, and the legacy SENTRY_DSN variable still works as a fallback for either component. The supported server SDK version is @sentry/node@10.71.0; it is an optional peer dependency for the server, so install it only if you want error monitoring. The browser SDK, @sentry/browser, is pinned to the same exact version. See doc/observability.md for the install command, the privacy settings, and the full default capture set.

Telemetry

Paperclip collects anonymous usage telemetry to help us understand how the product is used and improve it. No personal information, issue content, prompts, file paths, or secrets are ever collected. Private repository references are hashed with a per-install salt before being sent.

Contributors changing emitted telemetry events should follow the Telemetry Data Contract. For proposed first-party events that are not in the generated contract yet, follow Telemetry Workflow.

Telemetry is enabled by default and can be disabled with any of the following:

Method How
Environment variable PAPERCLIP_TELEMETRY_DISABLED=1
Standard convention DO_NOT_TRACK=1
CI environments Automatically disabled when CI=true
Config file Set telemetry.enabled: false in your Paperclip config

Contributing

We welcome contributions. See the contributing guide for details.

We're hiring


Community


License

MIT © 2026 Paperclip Labs, Inc

Star History

Star History Chart

Open source under MIT. Built for people who want to get work done, not babysit agents.

S
Description
No description provided
Readme MIT
3.2 GiB
0 Stars 1 Watchers 0 Forks
Languages
TypeScript 91.9%
JavaScript 4.1%
Rust 2.8%
Python 0.4%
CSS 0.3%
Other 0.3%