## 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>
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:
- Every push to
masterpublishes a canary automatically. - Stable releases are manually promoted from a chosen tested commit or canary tag.
- Stable release notes live in
releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md. - 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
2026.318.1line:2026.318.1-canary.3
Important constraints:
- the middle numeric slot is
MDD, whereMis the UTC month andDDis the zero-padded UTC day - use
2026.303.0for March 3, not2026.33.0 - 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:
- Verification — the exact git SHA passes typecheck, tests, and build
- npm —
paperclipaiand public workspace packages are published - GitHub — the stable release gets a git tag and GitHub Release
- 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
paperclipaipackage last, sopaperclipai@canarydoes not advance before the full package set exists - verifies that
canaryresolves to the just-published version and that published internal dependencies exist on npm - installs
paperclipai@canaryinto a clean temporary prefix as the final npm gate - fails by default if npm leaves
latestpointing at a canary; use--allow-canary-latestonly 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 "$(mktemp -d /tmp/paperclip-canary.XXXXXX)"
Stable
Use .github/workflows/release.yml from the Actions tab with the manual workflow_dispatch inputs.
Inputs:
source_ref- commit SHA, branch, or tag
stable_date- optional UTC date override in
YYYY-MM-DD - enter a date like
2026-03-18, not a version like2026.318.0
- optional UTC date override in
dry_run- preview only when true
Before running stable:
- pick the canary commit or tag you trust
- resolve the target stable version with
./scripts/release.sh stable --date "$(date +%F)" --print-version - create or update
releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.mdon that source ref - run the stable workflow from that source ref
Example:
source_ref:masterstable_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.Punder npm dist-taglatest - 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 onboardinstalls- 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:
- fix the issue on
master - merge the fix
- wait for the next automatic canary
- 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:
- push the missing tag
- rerun
PUBLISH_REMOTE=public-gh ./scripts/create-github-release.sh YYYY.MDD.P - 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.