mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
Dotta
41bf5cafa1
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent execution currently uses direct adapters inside the server process. > - The proposed Paperclip Runner adds a separate process and a new protocol boundary. > - This boundary needs clear trust, recovery, rollout, and compatibility rules before code lands. > - Large runner changes are difficult to review as one pull request. > - This pull request defines the first small boundary for the runner series. > - The benefit is a stable design contract for later implementation pull requests. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** The repository does not have a concise architecture decision or compatibility contract for Paperclip Runner. **What's wrong?** The available runner design material is too large for normal review. It mixes architecture, implementation history, test evidence, and deferred work. Reviewers need a short statement of the process boundary, trust model, rollout behavior, and direct-adapter compatibility rules. **Suggested fix** Add one architecture decision record and one compatibility document. Keep implementation details and campaign evidence out of this pull request. Related public work: Refs #11041, #11297, #11634, #11639, #11640, and #11962. This pull request is the first small replacement in the new review series for #11962. ## What Changed - Added an architecture decision for the runner process, PRP v1 transport, semantic tools, durable recovery, and additive server integration. - Added a compatibility and rollout contract for the default-off adapter, existing direct adapters, persisted native runs, and the task page. - Defined the initial package and provider limits. The first production provider is Codex only. - Defined acceptance checks for later implementation pull requests. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` passed with Node 24.19.0 and pnpm 9.15.4. - `pnpm check:node-version` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - The pull request changes 2 files. - `pnpm test:run` completed with 4,686 passing tests and 30 failures in unchanged master paths. The failures reproduce macOS path aliases, invalid generated port values, and local listener behavior. This documentation-only change does not touch those paths. Linux CI must pass before this pull request is ready. - All applicable GitHub Actions and security scans passed. The Storybook visual job skipped because this documentation-only change does not match its paths. - Greptile completed at 5/5 with no actionable comments. ## Risks Low implementation risk. This pull request changes documentation only. A later implementation can still diverge from the contract. Each later pull request must prove its behavior against these compatibility rules. I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This design supports the governed tool and control-plane direction. It does not add an overlapping user feature. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 was used. The exact serving model ID and context size were not exposed. The model used high reasoning, repository tools, GitHub tools, and local 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 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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [ ] 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