mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 06:10:44 +01:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
3a5572c9e5
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agent execution across environments.
> - Environment providers own execution resources.
> - Codex and Claude already share the login PTY transport.
> - A login on an existing computer needs its own allocation and
deadline.
> - Input retries must retain their identity.
> - Codex also needs a fixed credential-file read; Claude already
returns its token through PTY output.
> - This change extends the shared contract and keeps both existing
provider parsers.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem**
The existing login contract assumes a temporary sandbox. It cannot
describe a login allocation on an existing computer or export its fixed
credential result without generic execution.
**Proposed solution**
Add shared allocation purpose, command identity, PTY deadline, and input
identity fields for both Codex and Claude. Add one optional
credential-result hook for Codex's auth.json file.
**Alternatives considered**
A separate Claude login implementation would duplicate the current
setup-token parser and owner-bound credential writer. Claude continues
to use that existing path. The new artifact hook is Codex-specific
because Claude's setup-token result comes through the existing shared
PTY output stream.
## What Changed
- Export the login contract types from the main SDK entry point.
- Forward login purpose and command through plugin allocation and retain
them in lease metadata.
- Forward the PTY deadline and give each input write a stable identity.
- End a login route when the worker cannot confirm input delivery.
- Preserve the opening company scope for input, stop, and close
callbacks.
- Advertise and dispatch the optional fixed Codex credential-result
hook.
The allocation, deadline, input, output, and cleanup contracts serve
both providers. This PR does not enable either provider on an existing
computer. The dependent consumer PR connects admission, services,
credential completion, and UI for both providers.
## Verification
- Close-ordering regression: all 91 host worker-manager tests passed,
including concurrent close callers waiting behind a held plugin
acknowledgement after input failure. Server TypeScript check passed. All
current CI gates, ordinary review, and the selected follow-up review
pass on a39fb59bd1.
- Shared and SDK TypeScript builds passed.
- SDK worker dispatch: 31 tests passed.
- Host worker-manager: 90 tests passed, including a nested
worker-to-host scope guard.
- Environment runtime with embedded PostgreSQL: 197 tests passed.
- Added absent-hook, input-failure, and allocation-forwarding checks.
- A running instance is not required to validate this SDK-only
increment. Real provider acceptance follows after the dependent hooks
are connected.
## Risks
The hook and fields are optional. Existing sandbox providers keep their
current path. Failed input delivery now ends its route instead of
waiting for the deadline. There is no database migration.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and code execution. The exact
runtime model identifier and context size are not exposed to this agent.
## 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>