mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-23 09:07:46 +02:00
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI agents and their work. > - Local adapters are responsible for observing agent subprocesses and terminating runs that are genuinely stuck. > - The Codex local adapter currently treats output bytes as its only liveness signal for the 30-minute inactivity monitor. > - Healthy compile and test loops can consume CPU and perform disk I/O for longer than that without producing terminal output. > - Terminating those runs loses valid work, while removing the monitor entirely would allow truly wedged processes to run indefinitely. > - This pull request adds a Linux process-group activity probe that recognizes meaningful CPU, disk I/O, and child-process churn while retaining the existing timeout for idle processes. > - The benefit is that long silent builds can finish without weakening the adapter's hung-run safety net. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found in the duplicate/related search. **What happened** A healthy Codex local run executing a long compile/test loop could be terminated at the default 30-minute output-inactivity threshold when the child process emitted no stdout or stderr. **Expected behavior** The inactivity monitor should keep a silent run alive while its process group is doing meaningful work, but should still terminate a process group that is alive and idle. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run Codex local with the default `outputInactivityTimeoutMs`. 2. Have the agent start a compile or test command that consumes CPU or disk I/O without terminal output for longer than the threshold. 3. Observe the adapter terminate the otherwise healthy process group as output-inactive. **Affected version / deployment mode** Observed on a local-process Paperclip deployment using the Codex local adapter with the 30-minute default inactivity monitor. ## What Changed - Added a Linux `/proc` process-group sampler that tracks meaningful CPU tick growth, disk I/O growth, and child-process membership changes. - Reset the existing Codex inactivity timer when that sampler observes real process work, while leaving remote and non-Linux behavior unchanged. - Added diagnostics for the number of process-activity resets and documented the expanded liveness semantics. - Added unit coverage for process-activity timer resets and subprocess regressions for both a long silent CPU build and a genuinely wedged child. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/process-activity-monitor.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/output-inactivity-monitor.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/output-inactivity-monitor.integration.test.ts` - Focused result: 23 tests passed, including a silent CPU-bound subprocess that runs four times beyond the simulated inactivity window and an idle subprocess that is still terminated. ## Risks - Low risk and Linux-scoped: the new probe reads `/proc` every 15 seconds only while a monitored local Codex child is running. - The CPU threshold requires sustained work rather than any single scheduler tick, reducing the risk that a nearly idle event loop is treated as productive. - If `/proc` sampling is unavailable or fails, the adapter falls back to the existing output-only behavior. > 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 with model `gpt-5.6-sol`, high reasoning effort, terminal/tool execution, code editing, and test execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## 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>