Files
PaperClipAI/server
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5 6451d2bfbf fix(native): verify a staged attachment restart on the claimed sandbox lease (#20136)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A follow-up codex run on a per-turn Daytona sandbox gets a fresh
sandbox, with harness state restored from the previous turn's
checkpoint, and attaches the previous runner session to the new run
through a staged attachment
> - A graceful restart during that start suspends the run. The next
controller reattaches to the surviving remote runner, after proving it
is on the sandbox lease the restart claim names
> - The staged-attachment path required the lease to have been acquired
as `resumed`. A per-turn follow-up's lease is `created`, so every such
restart was refused with
`native_runner_staged_attachment_recovery_unproven`
> - The run then needed a Retry
> - This pull request binds the staged restart to the claimed lease the
same way the ordinary remote reattach does: same provider lease, same
remote directory, and not a replacement sandbox
> - The benefit is that a per-turn follow-up interrupted by a restart
continues on its own

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #20103

**What happened?**
Daytona per-turn restart-chaos wave w-20261108T225520-s9501 (master
15b987d9b8, image cbbe8224). Two codex C1 follow-up runs, created during
a K2 graceful drain at 23:11:45, were suspended mid-start:
- `4d1d3563` (t07);
- `71b43ea1` (t08).

Two to three seconds after the controller came back, both failed with
`native_runner_staged_attachment_recovery_unproven`, rested in
`native_continuation_requires_reconciliation`, and needed a Retry. The
stack shows the first guard in `verifyStagedAttachmentRestart`. Both
runs' environment leases were acquired with
`sandboxLeaseAcquisition.outcome: "created"`, because per-turn mode
creates a fresh sandbox for each turn. The guard accepted only
`"resumed"`.

**Expected behavior**
When the restart claim's provider lease and remote directory match the
run's own lease, the staged attachment's restart is verified as before,
and the run continues without a Retry. The rest of the staged proof is
unchanged. A replacement sandbox, or a different provider lease or
directory, is still refused.

**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run a codex follow-up on a per-turn Daytona environment, so the lease
is `created` and the start stages an attachment.
2. Gracefully restart the control plane during the start.
3. Before this change, the restarted run fails with
`native_runner_staged_attachment_recovery_unproven`.

**Paperclip version or commit**
15b987d9b8 (wave). Branch rebased on current master.

## What Changed

- `verifyStagedAttachmentRestart` (`native-session-executor.ts`) no
longer requires `sandboxLeaseAcquisition.outcome === "resumed"`. It
requires the same lease binding as `verifyRemoteRunnerReattachment`:
- the target's provider lease equals the claim's
`remote.providerLeaseId`;
  - the target's remote directory equals the claim's `remoteCwd`;
  - the lease is not a `replacement` sandbox.
- A new test case in `native-session-executor.test.ts` covers a created
sandbox (admitted), a replacement sandbox, another provider lease, and
another remote directory (all refused).

## Verification

- Red/green: on master, the created-sandbox case fails with
`native_runner_staged_attachment_recovery_unproven`. With the change it
reaches the staged recheck. The three refusal cases are refused on both.
- `vitest run` of `native-session-executor.test.ts` and
`native-restart-recovery-isolation.test.ts`: 2 files, 1305 tests passed.
- `PAPERCLIP_TYPECHECK_LOW_MEMORY=1 pnpm typecheck` (`server`): passed.

## Risks

- Low risk. The check now matches the ordinary remote reattach, which
already admits created leases. Everything after it is unchanged: the
encrypted staged header, the source run and result, the template digest,
and the remote runner identity are all still proven before any RPC.

## Model Used

- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), via Claude Code with tool use
(shell, file edits, test 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 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
- [ ] 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

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-11-08 17:59:56 -06:00
..