Dotta
560e7e48b5
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner package already provides the production protocol and execution spine. > - Contributors still need stable SDK surfaces, deterministic test tools, and local inspection tools. > - Those surfaces share generated contracts and must change as one package boundary. > - This pull request adds the package-local SDK, labs, examples, and drift checks. > - The benefit is a reviewable developer platform that does not change application execution selection. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** `packages/paperclip-runner` — runner SDK, conformance tools, and developer tooling. **Problem or motivation** The production runner spine is present, but package consumers cannot build deterministic integrations, inspect sessions, or verify provider-neutral behavior through supported surfaces. **Proposed solution** Add browser, React, standalone, live-session, scenario, conformance, and evaluation surfaces. Add generated contract inventories and package-local verification scripts. Keep production application routing unchanged. **Alternatives considered** We considered splitting each generated catalog, SDK surface, and demo into separate pull requests. Those changes share exports, fixtures, and drift gates. Splitting them would create intermediate package states that do not build. **Roadmap alignment** No overlapping item appears in `ROADMAP.md`. This work extends the runner package that is already on `master`. ## What Changed - Add browser, React, standalone, live-session, and issue-thread SDK surfaces. - Add deterministic mock control-plane, scenario, conformance, replay, and evaluation tools. - Add bounded Codex, OpenCode, and ACPX development transports and fixtures. - Keep deferred managed-provider execution fail-closed. Persisted compatibility data remains readable. - Add generated capability inventories with their source files and drift checks. - Add examples, package documentation, browser checks, and clean-consumer checks. - Preserve the reviewed protocol bounds, replay compatibility aliases, process environment isolation, and semantic redaction limits. - Update the ACPX package patch that the existing workspace patch registry already tracks. - Do not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`, repository workflows, server runtime selection, or the application UI. ## Verification GitHub Actions is the verification authority for this pull request. The repository CI, package TypeScript and Rust checks, package tests, generated-output drift checks, browser checks, security scans, and Greptile review must pass on the exact head. Local test suites were not run because this series uses parallel GitHub Actions for verification. ## Risks This is a large greenfield package change. The main risks are public export drift, generated-output drift, and optional React consumer compatibility. Package boundary checks, clean-consumer checks, and browser tests cover those risks. Production adapter selection and server execution are outside this pull request. ## Stack 1. **This PR:** runner SDK and developer tooling. 2. [Codex production server integration](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12616). 3. [Provider-neutral task-thread UI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12617). ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, high-reasoning mode, with 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 described the issue in-PR following the feature request template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [ ] 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 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
2.5 KiB
Capability Future Binding Boundary (future upload integration / ACPX)
Capability is a package-local model. It does not integrate the runner into Paperclip, and it must not. This page states exactly what Capability defers to future upload integration and what clean seam it preserves so the deferral stays cheap.
What Capability does not do
Nothing in Capability contacts a real Paperclip control plane, database, ACPX
session, or provider credential. The 106-case conformance suite and the browser
explorer run entirely against the in-process
mock ControlPlanePort and checked-in
fixtures. The forbidden-imports boundary rejects any import
that crosses into server/, ui/, cli/, @paperclipai/db, or other
Paperclip workspace internals.
The preserved seam
The dependency arrow always points from an implementation toward a contract. The package owns two contracts a future consumer implements:
ControlPlanePort— the narrow surface through which a runner opens a run, appends ordered events, records semantic operations, and submits a terminal result. Capability injects the mock adapter behind this port; future upload integration injects a real one. The catalog, authorization engine, and conformance suite bind to the port, not to any adapter.NativeSessionBackend— the normalized session surface for a future control-plane consumer.
Because the port is the only coupling point, future upload integration replaces the adapter without touching the tool catalog, the authorization rules, or the eval-derived conformance suite. The package remains independently buildable, testable, and runnable against the mock adapter after the real one exists.
What future upload integration (ACPX) will bind
future upload integration binds a real Paperclip ControlPlanePort implementation behind the same
seam so the semantic tools and authorization engine act against a live control
plane instead of the mock. That work is out of scope here and requires separate
CTO approval at the Capability checkpoint (TASK-16908). Until then:
- ACPX is future upload integration, not Capability.
- No Capability documentation claims future upload integration capability.
- Real integration is a separately reviewed phase, consistent with the future integration rule recorded for every prior phase.