DottaandPaperclip
f3cd3f4ea8
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Remote runs need one runner to own their process identity and listener. > - A health request can fail while that runner continues to work. > - The active monitor treated a failed request as a process exit. > - Recovery could then launch another runner against the occupied listener. > - This pull request retries health reads and requires proof of exit before replacement. > - A brief outage can recover on the same runner without replaying agent work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16341 adds remote recovery diagnostics. Refs: #16686 retries verification when restoring a saved remote session. This change applies the shared probe policy to active process supervision. **What happened?** The active remote monitor settled its completion promise after a timed-out or rejected health request. The transport treated that result as an exit and started process recovery. An existing runner could still own the listener. Replacement then failed with `runner_ingress_bind_conflict` until the reconnect deadline expired. Missing or changed ownership markers also did not prove that the old process had exited. **Expected behavior** Retry transient read failures on the same runner. Require a matching ownership marker and proof of process exit before replacement. Preserve uncertainty when identity or liveness cannot be verified. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a remote runner and leave its listener alive. 2. Make one process-health request time out or reject. 3. Observe completion and the restart decision. Before this change, the monitor settles while the process is alive, and the restart wrapper permits another launch. **Paperclip version or commit** The defect was reproduced on master at `6e89919631`. The patch is based on current master at `c6a0cf4bce`. ## What Changed - Reuse the bounded read-only recovery probe for active supervision. Retry up to three reads within 30 seconds. - Check the saved process generation when available. Accept only the specific process-not-running receipt as exit proof. - Add an exit-confirmation contract to remote process handles. Require it for restart and shutdown completion. Preserve the cause of supervision errors. - Test transient failures, exhausted retries, conflicting identities, real listening processes, and an authenticated runner with a fake provider. Keep confirmed-exit replacement covered. - Document the recovery policy and coverage limits in the execution contract and maps. ## Verification - Red: the timeout and transport-error regressions failed before the patch because completion settled while the runner was alive. The restart-guard regression also failed because replacement was allowed. - Green: 14 server supervision cases passed, including a real listening process. All 120 shared control-plane tests passed. Focused Runner tests passed for authenticated live-runner fault injection and confirmed-exit replacement. - Review regression: a replacement-health test first failed because its error cause was lost. It passed after preserving the cause and detail. The four affected transport cases and Runner typecheck then passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed for 35 areas and 176 capability IDs. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. The sequential local full-suite run was stopped before completion; no local full-suite pass is claimed. Final commit `bcc1b1d339` passed the complete CI matrix: 55 checks passed and two optional Storybook checks were skipped. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved conversations. The PR has no merge conflicts. - The first real-listener attempt could not bind inside the execution sandbox. The same test passed with local socket access. The first package-test invocation used the root configuration and selected no tests; the package configuration ran all selected tests. - CI attempt 1: nine test jobs were cancelled together at 12:54:59 UTC. Their test steps report cancellation. The build and uninterrupted jobs passed. The interrupted jobs were retried once. That retry exposed one confirmed-exit message assertion failure in the Runner shard; the other jobs passed. The compatibility correction preserves the prior message. The failing case and four recovery cases then passed locally. The complete CI matrix passed after that correction. - No live sandbox restoration, deployment, or historical task recovery is claimed. ## Risks - A persistent outage now ends supervision with explicit exit uncertainty. It cannot authorize a competing process. Existing ownership and workspace recovery checks remain required. - Health reads can take up to 30 seconds before reporting an unavailable runner. Retries are read-only and bounded. - Local launchers keep their existing completion contract. No database migration or public API change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving snapshot and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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>
Paperclip agent access map
This map accompanies the feature map. It records APIs, agent entry points, permission boundaries and verification for the same capability IDs. The shared contract defines the format and maintenance rules.
Browse access contracts
The same-named feature recipes define navigation and capability IDs. Run
node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs for the generated
maps/generated/agent-access-map.md index, or browse the
published feature guide.
Add or update the affected companion; there is no central registration or count.
Existing baseline source references describe the original inspection, not current verification. Record new executed evidence in the PR, issue, or CI artifact with its revision and scope. Do not refresh unrelated headers as bookkeeping.
Using an entry
Read its Policy and Gaps before selecting an agent path. Native fallback, legacy
REST/CLI, stdio MCP and a personal assistant connection can have different
authority and availability. Use a real admitted production binding; a scenario
declaration is not an installed tool. A restricted entry records current
enforcement and leaves any unresolved delegation decision visible.
For API catalog disagreements, follow the route/service authorization and record
discovery drift. For not-applicable, retain the concrete exception and local
path. Split shared business operations from client-only presentation.
Use maintain-verification-skill to reconcile changed source and both maps.
Use verify-paperclip and existing API/runner/MCP fixtures to collect the
permitted-agent and denial evidence; report blocked/not-run coverage honestly.
Run node scripts/check-maps.mjs after editing. The structural check does not
certify permissions, API catalog coverage, tool admission or live behavior.
Native REST transport
The call_api parity change reconciles affected baselines against
58e16dbddfc9c8d0cf60867f9d9847f0feda055b and the changes in this PR. Ordinary
REST operations use the same route authorization as legacy agent REST. Dedicated
tools remain optional for those operations; protocol endpoints still need their
existing clients. Board-only routes remain restricted for agent identity.
Native search_api / call_api requires operator rollout admission, a running
authorized native run, current task assignment and execution-run binding, company
and budget authority, task privacy, and a permitted work mode. Ask and Plan retain
mutation restrictions, and runs retain their admitted JWT scope during restart
recovery even when task mode changes. A waiting
agent does not gain independent native control just because a REST route exists.
Credential-bearing replies, including company exports and their legacy alias, stay inline under a 10 MiB limit and use encrypted mutation receipts. Other saved API snapshots are limited to the issuing actor and responsible user, plus authorized administrators. Artifact uploads enforce the same access checks as downloads; private snapshots are excluded from company exports and public company logos. Explicit deliverables use the existing sharing path. Native event history, checkpoints and completion records omit API bodies while preserving receipt metadata and replay digests. Restored webhook secrets use the same encrypted receipt and inline response policy as newly created webhook secrets. Task image access requires the company boundary and the task permission; skill-test and low-trust agents do not need company-wide browsing authority. Completion replay applies the same idempotent projection to stored and expected payloads; the run-log guide describes its fields.
Sources: API client,
catalog,
native authority,
credential storage classification,
snapshot access,
and history redaction. The affected entries remain
baseline and source-only; this reconciliation does not certify every operation.
Targeted real-route proof lives in the
API integration suite,
including owned routines, skill tests, scoped secrets, proposals and private export replay.