Files
PaperClipAI/doc/RELEASING.md
T
fc5a30805e feat(cli): add managed install, update, and service lifecycle (#10045)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies
> - Operators need a predictable installation path that survives beyond
an ephemeral `npx` process
> - A durable installation needs an owned per-user payload store, stable
command shim, safe shell integration, and supported service lifecycle
> - Updates must preserve recoverability by backing up data, installing
side-by-side, verifying the new payload, and retaining rollback state
> - Bootstrap scripts and privileged service operations must fail closed
across download, filesystem, ownership, and consent boundaries
> - This pull request integrates managed install, update, rollback,
service, uninstall, doctor, bootstrap-installer, and runtime-serving
support into one workflow
> - The benefit is a recoverable, inspectable, and documented
installation lifecycle with explicit safety boundaries across Linux,
macOS, containers, WSL, npm, npx, and source checkouts

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

### Problem

Paperclip lacks a first-class durable installation and lifecycle
workflow. Operators currently have to assemble npm/npx installation,
PATH setup, background-service management, updates, rollback,
diagnostics, and uninstall behavior themselves. That makes upgrades
harder to recover, creates inconsistent behavior across platforms, and
leaves shell/download/service trust boundaries without one documented
implementation.

### Proposed Solution

Add a managed per-user install store and stable shim, a verified shell
bootstrap installer, service lifecycle commands, install-mode-aware
update/rollback behavior, doctor checks, and documentation. Managed
updates back up the database, install and smoke-test a side-by-side
payload, atomically switch `current`, and retain prior payloads. The
shell installer pins registry/download trust boundaries and requires
explicit consent for non-interactive privileged actions.

### Alternatives Considered

- Keep recommending `npx`: simple for evaluation, but ephemeral and
unsuitable for stable services, atomic updates, or rollback.
- Require global npm installation only: familiar, but cannot provide the
owned side-by-side payload store and retained rollback semantics.
- Split the capability across multiple PRs: rejected because install,
update, service, uninstall, bootstrap, and serving behavior share
contracts and security boundaries that need review together.

### Related Pull Requests

- Supersedes #10042 and #10044 with one integrated final diff.
- Incorporates and replaces the closed preparatory work in #10032 and
#10034.

## What Changed

- Added `paperclipai install`, `update`/`upgrade`, rollback, uninstall,
service lifecycle, onboarding integration, and managed-install doctor
checks.
- Added a private managed payload store, verified manifest/marker
ownership, exclusive mutation locks, atomic manifest/current/shim
writes, retained previous payloads, and provenance validation.
- Added npm and GitHub-ref install sources with exact target resolution,
registry isolation, database backup, side-by-side verification, atomic
activation, service restart coordination, and failure rollback.
- Made managed-update backups report actionable service-start and
`--no-backup` recovery guidance for unreachable databases, while clean
never-onboarded instances skip an empty backup.
- Added systemd user and launchd service definitions, status/health/log
commands, single-instance coordination, stale-port recovery, and
explicit sudo/lingering consent handling.
- Added the `scripts/install.sh` bootstrap path with checked two-stage
downloads, pinned public npm registry usage, platform checks,
dry-run/non-interactive controls, and Docker fixtures.
- Added embedded Postgres/native bootstrap integration,
hot-restart/systemd-notify serving support, passive update notices,
configuration contracts, README/CLI/install documentation, and focused
regression tests.
- Security re-review should explicitly re-verify: (1)
`addManagedPathBlock`/`removeManagedPathBlock` reject symlinked or
non-regular rc files, assert current-user ownership, preserve
restrictive modes, and replace atomically; (2) managed shim replacement
rejects unsafe parents, foreign-owned or multiply linked files, and uses
checked atomic replacement; (3) the shell installer and sudo path
preserve explicit consent and checked downloads; and (4) installed
service/runtime serving remains bound to the validated managed shim and
instance configuration.

## Verification

- `bash -n scripts/install.sh scripts/clean-install-git.sh
scripts/clean-install-npm.sh scripts/test-install-sh-docker.sh`
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/install-store.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/install-command.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/managed-install-check.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/onboard-service.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/service-health-check.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/service-manager.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/update-command.test.ts
cli/src/__tests__/update-notice.test.ts
packages/db/src/embedded-postgres-native.test.ts` — 9 files, 66 tests
passed
- `pnpm --dir cli typecheck`
- `pnpm --dir cli build`
- Follow-up verification: `pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/update-command.test.ts` (14/14), `pnpm --dir cli
typecheck`, `pnpm --dir cli build`, and `pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/server typecheck`.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Full `pnpm test:run` exercised all suites; an injected static AWS
credential changed one unrelated doctor expectation, which passed when
those credentials were removed. A second run cleared that case and
exposed stale pre-existing adapter-utils `dist` output; rebuilding
`@paperclipai/adapter-utils` made the isolated test pass. The updated PR
CI is the authoritative clean-workspace full-suite run.

## Risks

- Installer/update code writes executable shims, symlinks, shell rc
blocks, service definitions, and managed payloads; ownership,
regular-file, symlink, hard-link, marker, and path-containment checks
fail closed before destructive changes.
- The bootstrap installer executes downloaded tooling; downloads are
staged and checked before execution, npm traffic is pinned to the public
registry, and non-interactive privileged behavior requires explicit
consent.
- Linux lingering may invoke `sudo`; the command is surfaced and
confirmed before execution, and unsupported service managers fall back
to foreground-run guidance.
- Database migrations remain forward-only; payload rollback does not
reverse migrations, so managed updates create a backup before activation
unless explicitly disabled.
- Service restart and runtime serving touch process/port ownership;
lifecycle locks, health/version checks, and stable-shim service
definitions reduce split-brain and stale-process risk.

> 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 coding agents using GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6-sol, with
reasoning, repository/API access, shell execution, and test tooling. The
runtime did not expose a reliable 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>
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 18:52:23 -07:00

7.6 KiB

Releasing Paperclip

Maintainer runbook for shipping Paperclip across npm, GitHub, and the website-facing changelog surface.

The release model is now commit-driven:

  1. Every push to master publishes a canary automatically.
  2. Stable releases are manually promoted from a chosen tested commit or canary tag.
  3. Stable release notes live in releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md.
  4. Only stable releases get GitHub Releases.

Versioning Model

Paperclip uses calendar versions that still fit semver syntax:

  • stable: YYYY.MDD.P
  • canary: YYYY.MDD.P-canary.N

Examples:

  • first stable on March 18, 2026: 2026.318.0
  • second stable on March 18, 2026: 2026.318.1
  • fourth canary for the 2026.318.1 line: 2026.318.1-canary.3

Important constraints:

  • the middle numeric slot is MDD, where M is the UTC month and DD is the zero-padded UTC day
  • use 2026.303.0 for March 3, not 2026.33.0
  • do not use leading zeroes such as 2026.0318.0
  • do not use four numeric segments such as 2026.3.18.1
  • the semver-safe canary form is 2026.318.0-canary.1

Release Surfaces

Every stable release has four separate surfaces:

  1. Verification — the exact git SHA passes typecheck, tests, and build
  2. npm — paperclipai and public workspace packages are published
  3. GitHub — the stable release gets a git tag and GitHub Release
  4. Website / announcements — the stable changelog is published externally and announced

A stable release is done only when all four surfaces are handled.

Canaries only cover the first two surfaces plus an internal traceability tag.

Core Invariants

  • canaries publish from master
  • stables publish from an explicitly chosen source ref
  • tags point at the original source commit, not a generated release commit
  • stable notes are always releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md
  • canaries never create GitHub Releases
  • canaries never require changelog generation

TL;DR

Canary

Every push to master runs the canary path inside .github/workflows/release.yml.

It:

  • verifies the pushed commit
  • computes the canary version for the current UTC date
  • publishes workspace packages dependency-first under npm dist-tag canary
  • waits for each package version to become registry-visible before continuing
  • publishes the user-facing paperclipai package last, so paperclipai@canary does not advance before the full package set exists
  • verifies that canary resolves to the just-published version and that published internal dependencies exist on npm
  • installs paperclipai@canary into a clean temporary prefix as the final npm gate
  • fails by default if npm leaves latest pointing at a canary; use --allow-canary-latest only when that state is intentional
  • creates a git tag canary/vYYYY.MDD.P-canary.N

Users install canaries with:

npx paperclipai@canary onboard
# or
npx paperclipai@canary onboard --data-dir "$(mktemp -d /tmp/paperclip-canary.XXXXXX)"

Stable

Use .github/workflows/release.yml from the Actions tab with the manual workflow_dispatch inputs.

Run the action here

Inputs:

  • source_ref
    • commit SHA, branch, or tag
  • stable_date
    • optional UTC date override in YYYY-MM-DD
    • enter a date like 2026-03-18, not a version like 2026.318.0
  • dry_run
    • preview only when true

Before running stable:

  1. pick the canary commit or tag you trust
  2. resolve the target stable version with ./scripts/release.sh stable --date "$(date +%F)" --print-version
  3. create or update releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md on that source ref
  4. run the stable workflow from that source ref

Example:

  • source_ref: master
  • stable_date: 2026-03-18
  • resulting stable version: 2026.318.0

The workflow:

  • re-verifies the exact source ref
  • computes the next stable patch slot for the chosen UTC date
  • publishes YYYY.MDD.P under npm dist-tag latest
  • creates git tag vYYYY.MDD.P
  • creates or updates the GitHub Release from releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md

Local Commands

Preview a canary locally

./scripts/release.sh canary --dry-run

Preview a stable locally

./scripts/release.sh stable --dry-run

Publish a stable locally

This is mainly for emergency/manual use. The normal path is the GitHub workflow.

./scripts/release.sh stable
git push public-gh refs/tags/vYYYY.MDD.P
PUBLISH_REMOTE=public-gh ./scripts/create-github-release.sh YYYY.MDD.P

Stable Changelog Workflow

Stable changelog files live at:

  • releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md

Canaries do not get changelog files.

Recommended local generation flow:

VERSION="$(./scripts/release.sh stable --date 2026-03-18 --print-version)"
claude --print --output-format stream-json --verbose --dangerously-skip-permissions --model claude-opus-4-6 "Use the release-changelog skill to draft or update releases/v${VERSION}.md for Paperclip. Read doc/RELEASING.md and .agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md, then generate the stable changelog for v${VERSION} from commits since the last stable tag. Do not create a canary changelog."

The repo intentionally does not run this through GitHub Actions because:

  • canaries are too frequent
  • stable notes are the only public narrative surface that needs LLM help
  • maintainer LLM tokens should not live in Actions

Smoke Testing

For a canary:

PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=canary ./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh

For the current stable:

PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=latest ./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh

Useful isolated variants:

HOST_PORT=3232 DATA_DIR=./data/release-smoke-canary PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=canary ./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh
HOST_PORT=3233 DATA_DIR=./data/release-smoke-stable PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=latest ./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh

Automated browser smoke is also available:

gh workflow run release-smoke.yml -f paperclip_version=canary
gh workflow run release-smoke.yml -f paperclip_version=latest

Minimum checks:

  • npx paperclipai@canary onboard installs
  • onboarding completes without crashes
  • authenticated login works with the smoke credentials
  • the browser lands in onboarding on a fresh instance
  • company creation succeeds
  • the first CEO agent is created
  • the first CEO heartbeat run is triggered

Rollback

Rollback does not unpublish versions.

It only moves the latest dist-tag back to a previous stable:

./scripts/rollback-latest.sh 2026.318.0 --dry-run
./scripts/rollback-latest.sh 2026.318.0

Then fix forward with a new stable patch slot or release date.

Failure Playbooks

If the canary publishes but smoke testing fails

Do not run stable.

Instead:

  1. fix the issue on master
  2. merge the fix
  3. wait for the next automatic canary
  4. rerun smoke testing

If stable npm publish succeeds but tag push or GitHub release creation fails

This is a partial release. npm is already live.

Do this immediately:

  1. push the missing tag
  2. rerun PUBLISH_REMOTE=public-gh ./scripts/create-github-release.sh YYYY.MDD.P
  3. verify the GitHub Release notes point at releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md

Do not republish the same version.

If latest is broken after stable publish

Roll back the dist-tag:

./scripts/rollback-latest.sh YYYY.MDD.P

Then fix forward with a new stable release.