mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-23 17:33:51 +02:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
0081863463
## Thinking Path - Paperclip uses Runner to execute agent tasks under Core's selected policy. - The ACPX sidecar can receive assigned MCP tools in its PRP catalog. - Isolated admission still requires a separate native MCP endpoint for those assignments. - This check rejects a valid PRP route before the provider can start. - This PR identifies the sidecar's PRP transport at the runtime-host boundary. - The benefit is that assigned tools work with the existing isolated permission policy. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An isolated Claude task with an assigned MCP binding fails with `assigned native MCP launch binding is unavailable` when Core delivers its tools through PRP. **Expected behavior** The sidecar must accept its authenticated PRP tool bridge as the assigned-tool route. Callers that use the native gateway must still supply its complete binding. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open an isolated Claude sidecar session with `deny-all` permissions and a read-only policy. 2. Supply an assigned MCP binding in the runtime context and its tools in the PRP catalog. 3. Omit native gateway environment variables. Admission fails before provider startup. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against `92cfd701c39bb1ea394a796023481a21decb2532`. **Deployment mode** Runner with an ACPX sidecar and controller-owned tool delivery. Related contract work: #16978. The search found no existing PR or issue for this failure. ## What Changed - Let runtime-host callers select PRP delivery when they supply the semantic tool bridge. - Select that route in the sidecar. Keep native gateway validation and direct callers' default behavior. - Preserve exact controller operation names in PRP mode, including the compact assigned-MCP catalog. Keep existing aliases for other bridge callers. - Preserve the selected permission and read-only policies. - Add one process-level sidecar regression and one host admission regression. The host test calls the real authenticated MCP bridge. - Document the route and refresh the generated Copilot source hashes. The provider and profile versions stay the same. ## Verification - Passed 11 focused tests after the rebase across the runtime host, sidecar, tool bridge, and Copilot identity tests. They cover both compact catalog operations, restricted and approve-all policies, legacy aliases, missing and invalid gateway bindings, and the existing direct gateway path. - The process-level test crosses the real sidecar dispatcher and stops at workspace validation before provider startup. The host test uses real ownership sockets and MCP HTTP, with a fake provider port. - The generated identity tests match the current source hashes. The historical fixture stays unchanged. - The standard review passed on the rebased commit. [Apex passed the required 5/5 threshold](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/runs/119513362214) on `e63a223`, with 11 files reviewed and no findings. - Rebased onto master `734c265`. The conflicts affected generated source identities and their test expectations. All reviewed behavior files remain byte-for-byte unchanged. The user authorized retaining the Apex result for this rebase. [CI passed on `3facef5`](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39685163239). The final PR checks contain 56 passes and four expected skips. The branch is current with master, has no conflicts, and has no unresolved review comments. - `node packages/paperclip-runner/scripts/copilot-profile-identity.mjs --check` passed. - Initial local runs exposed missing test dependencies and sandbox denial of loopback sockets. After the scoped dependency install and socket permission, the selected tests passed. - Broad typecheck, build, and test verification runs in GitHub CI, as requested. No live provider or model request was made. ## Risks - PRP callers must supply the assigned tools in the controller-owned catalog. The existing bridge still enforces its closed catalog and authentication. - An explicit PRP selection without a semantic bridge still fails. Invalid native gateway bindings still fail. - No database, protocol-frame, provider-version, or credential-storage change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with source inspection, editing, and command execution. The exact served model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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>