mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 08:22:20 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
56e09cd19f
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native Runner connects those agents to harnesses through provider drivers. > - Adding a harness crosses protocol, setup, lifecycle, packaging, and product boundaries. > - Existing guidance does not provide one complete procedure for this work. > - This pull request adds a native Runner skill, detailed playbook, and working templates. > - Contributors can use them to define a release, implement the integration, and verify the delivered result. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** Native Runner contribution guidance in `doc/DEVELOPING.md` and `packages/paperclip-runner/README.md`. **What's wrong?** Contributors must reconstruct the requirements, protocol mapping, normal setup, lifecycle rules, packaging, and acceptance process when they add a harness. The legacy direct-adapter recipe covers a different execution path. **Suggested fix** Add a self-contained native Runner procedure. Include capability research, a finite release contract, implementation boundaries, reproducible tests, normal installation, and release evidence. State each lesson directly so contributors need no private chats, tasks, or evidence archives. The duplicate search found no existing playbook PR. ## What Changed - Add `create-runner-adapter` for new native Runner harness integrations. - Add a detailed playbook based on the Pi, Cursor, and Copilot integration lessons. - Cover model and instruction admission, connection setup, rich events, durable interactions, recovery, cancellation, packaging, and Product E2E acceptance. - Add templates for scope, capabilities, attempts, failures, jobs, and release handoff. - Link the procedure from the development guide and Runner README. - Keep legacy adapters as a compatibility boundary. ## Verification - `git diff origin/master --check` passed. - `node scripts/validate-doc-links.mjs` passed from `packages/paperclip-runner` and checked 53 documentation files. - All 71 Markdown links in the new reusable files resolve to repository paths or public provider documentation. - Skill YAML, naming, description, and scaffold checks passed. - A private-reference audit passed for the reusable skill, playbook, and templates. - The legacy direct-adapter skill matches the base version. - Full local runtime checks were attempted with pnpm 9.15.4. `pnpm -r typecheck` stopped because Node type definitions are missing. `pnpm test:run` and `pnpm build` stopped because `cli/node_modules/tsx` is missing. This checkout has no installed dependencies. These commands did not establish runtime test or build results. - Full remote CI passed on commit `88b4fc4832d95807da1f5e48029a183b3dc62b6c`: build, typecheck, general and serialized server tests, Runner checks, browser tests, and the canary dry run. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39262297681). - All 55 applicable checks passed. The two Storybook checks were skipped for this change. - Greptile gave the current commit 5/5. There are no review comments or unresolved threads. ## Risks Low risk. The procedure can drift as the Runner contracts and test entry points change. It records its source baseline and tells contributors to inspect current declarations. Historical lessons describe failure patterns; they do not certify current binaries. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with `gpt-6-astra` and `gpt-6.1-sol`, both using xhigh reasoning. Context-window sizes were not exposed. The models used repository search, terminal tools, and file edits. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used, including available version and capability details - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this documentation does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs - [x] I have described the issue in this PR using the documentation issue template fields - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket or instance details - [x] I have run the relevant local documentation checks; they pass. Blocked runtime checks are recorded above - [x] I have considered tests for this documentation-only change and validated its links and skill metadata - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented the 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 merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>