mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-08 11:13:44 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
4e00818574
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane people use to coordinate AI agents and their execution environments. > - Environment realization decides where an agent runs and which filesystem and toolchain are authoritative. > - Copy-based realization is unsafe for container-anchored tasks because absolute paths such as `/app` can point outside the synchronized tree and task-specific binaries may be absent. > - That mismatch can let an agent successfully verify work in a phantom writable path while sync-back silently discards the result. > - Existing task environments already provide the authoritative filesystem and toolchain, so they should be executed in place rather than copied. > - Copy mode still needs explicit confinement rules so aliases target the synchronized workspace and unsynchronized writable paths fail visibly. > - This pull request adds typed realization metadata, propagates the authoritative root through orchestration, and teaches Codex to honor it. > - The benefit is that container-anchored tasks operate on verifier-visible state with the intended tools, while copy mode remains safe and backward compatible. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this defect. GitHub duplicate searches for in-place execution, workspace realization, and authoritative workspace roots found no related pull request to link. ### What happened? Environment-backed agent runs were always realized through a copied workspace. Tasks anchored to absolute container paths could therefore write outside the synchronized tree, and task-provided toolchains were unavailable in the copy. A run could report success even though sync-back discarded its output. ### Expected behavior Existing task environments should run against their real authoritative root and toolchain. Copy-mode runs should map declared absolute aliases into the synchronized tree and reject writable paths that cannot be restored. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Run a Codex task environment whose required files live under `/app` or `/workspace` and whose required binary exists only in the task container. 2. Observe that copy realization changes the effective filesystem/toolchain or permits writes outside the synchronized root. 3. Complete and verify the task inside the agent sandbox. 4. Observe that the verifier cannot see out-of-tree artifacts or that task-specific commands were unavailable. ### Reproduction context - Paperclip commit: `3a16b91217483d2c233926de5b7f7bc3a1077924` - Deployment: built from source in a task-container execution environment - Adapter: Codex local - Database: not database-related - Access context: agent execution ## What Changed - Added typed `copy | in_place` workspace-realization metadata, authoritative roots, confined aliases, and outbound restore paths to shared execution-target contracts. - Selected in-place realization for existing task environments and skipped archive prepare/restore when the authoritative environment is used directly. - Propagated the authoritative root into adapter context so Codex uses it for cwd and `PAPERCLIP_WORKSPACE_*` semantics, including ACP execution. - Bound copy-mode aliases such as `/app` to the synchronized workspace and rejected writable out-of-tree paths without explicit restore mappings. - Added focused regression coverage while preserving existing copy-mode archive restore behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/local-process-sandbox.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/acp.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-run-orchestrator.test.ts` — 48 passed, 4 skipped. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY -u AWS_SESSION_TOKEN pnpm test:run` — passed across all general and serialized Vitest shards. - `pnpm build` — passed. - Codex `k=1` acceptance run completed July 24, 2026 at 23:54:30 UTC with 4 completed, 0 exceptions, and mean reward 1.0: `build-cython-ext`, `openssl-selfsigned-cert`, `prove-plus-comm`, and `sqlite-db-truncate` each received terminal grade 1.0 against real task-environment paths and toolchains. ## Risks - In-place mode deliberately exposes the authoritative task root to the adapter; incorrect environment metadata could point execution at the wrong root. Typed metadata and focused orchestration tests cover selection and propagation. - Copy-mode writable-path validation is stricter and may reject previously accepted unsafe configurations. The rejection is intentional and produces a visible error instead of silently losing output. - The acceptance run is focused on four Codex task-environment workloads, not a broad cross-adapter benchmark. Existing copy-mode archive tests and the full repository suite remain green. > 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 CLI coding agent; exact model ID and context-window size were not exposed to this runtime. Capabilities used: extended reasoning, repository editing, shell execution, test/build execution, Git, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API tool use. ## 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>