mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
e71ce9a9d3
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip runs work through adapters and sandbox providers > - Providers need a clear contract so the server can use only verified capabilities > - A declared capability must not grant a method that the live worker did not verify > - This pull request adds manifest declarations and fail-closed effective capability resolution > - The benefit is safe provider reuse across execution targets and run lifecycles ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) **Problem or motivation** Sandbox providers expose different runtime methods. The server needs one safe capability contract that accounts for provider declarations, worker verification, and narrowing configuration. **Proposed solution** Add strict manifest validation for five sandbox capabilities. Resolve effective capabilities as the subset of verified, declared, and narrowed values. Store the result as a frozen execution-target snapshot. **Alternatives considered** Trusting the manifest alone could grant methods that the worker does not support. Trusting only a fixed built-in list would reject valid third-party providers. The intersection rule keeps the verified runtime ceiling and supports both provider types. **Roadmap alignment** This change supports the ACP run lifecycle track and the sandbox provider contract work in the current roadmap. **Additional context** The legacy `supportsReusableLeases` field remains supported. The nested capability validator rejects unknown keys. Missing or unavailable verification resolves all capabilities to `false`. ## What Changed - Add strict `sandboxCapabilities` manifest validation with legacy reusable-lease compatibility. - Carry declarations through the ready-driver projection. - Add fail-closed effective resolution from verified, declared, and narrowed capabilities. - Add narrowing for provider configuration, Kubernetes Job leases, and Daytona sessions. - Add a frozen read-only capability snapshot to execution targets. - Add focused tests and keep existing characterization baselines covered. - Add and update sandbox provider capability documentation. ## Verification - `npx vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts` - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-environment-driver-sandbox-capabilities.test.ts` - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/sandbox-capability-contract.test.ts` - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-execution-target-capabilities.test.ts` - `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/startup-characterization.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/turn-characterization.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/settlement-characterization.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/composed-run-characterization.test.ts` - Package typechecks for shared, server, and adapter-utils pass. - Stage-2 security review suites pass with 28 tests. ## Risks The resolver fails closed when verification is absent or unavailable. Providers that rely on undeclared capabilities may see narrower behavior until they expose verified worker methods. The change does not alter the existing native-sync guard. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, exact runtime model ID `gpt-5`, tool use and code execution. The implementation author used this model to assist with the change. ## 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>