## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip uses adapters to connect agents and model providers to its
control plane
> - The sandbox login panel supports displayed-code login for selected
adapters
> - Grok users need the same login path and a private credential home
for later runs
> - This pull request adds Grok support to the shared device-login path
and preserves the existing Codex path
> - The benefit is one secure login flow for both adapters with
company-scoped credential storage
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Agent or provider**
Grok Local needs displayed-code login support in the sandbox login
panel.
**Why this adapter is useful**
This change lets users sign in to Grok from the sandbox login panel. It
also gives later Grok runs access to the stored credential.
**How the agent is invoked**
The Grok local adapter uses its login command through the shared
displayed-code login flow. Later runs receive the managed home through
`GROK_HOME`.
**Additional context**
The change uses adapter-scoped login lifecycle handling. It stores the
credential in a company-scoped directory with mode `0700`, and it stores
the credential file with mode `0600`.
## What Changed
- Rename the shared device-login modules to adapter-neutral names.
- Scope the shared login lifecycle to a closed adapter set.
- Return the device-login URL that the provider prints.
- Add the Grok prompt parser, login command, capability, and login panel
entry.
- Store the Grok credential in a private, company-scoped home directory.
- Pass `GROK_HOME` to later Grok runs.
- Add tests for the Grok adapter, the Daytona sandbox provider, the
server login path, and the user interface.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm vitest run
packages/adapters/grok-local/src/server/adapter-auth-promotion.test.ts`.
- Run the Grok adapter package suite.
- Run the Daytona sandbox provider suite.
- Run the server device-login suites.
- Run the user interface suite.
- Confirm the full CI suite passes.
## Risks
The change extends shared login lifecycle code to another adapter. A
regression could affect Codex login. The credential path uses explicit
`chmod` calls to keep the directory at mode `0700` and the file at mode
`0600`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime used tool calls and code review
support. The runtime did not provide a context-window value.
## 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
- [ ] 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The adapter layer carries sandbox requests to host processes.
> - The HTTP/2 bridge used one process-wide byte ledger for all routes.
> - One busy route could exhaust that shared budget and move another
route to file transport.
> - This pull request gives each host retention site a fixed byte bound
and limits concurrent HTTP/2 streams.
> - The benefit is local protection: one route cannot consume the byte
budget of another route.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The HTTP/2 bridge used one aggregate byte ledger for retained bytes
across all routes. A busy route could exhaust the shared budget and
force an unrelated route to use file transport.
**Expected behavior**
Each route should protect its own retained bytes. A reset on one HTTP/2
stream should cancel only that stream's host forward.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start the HTTP/2 bridge with multiple sandbox routes.
2. Send enough retained data through one route to reach the aggregate
byte limit.
3. Send a request through a sibling route.
4. Observe that the sibling route can fall back to file transport
because the first route used the shared ledger.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`47639e227e78e3c5e0dd1a3c0e2d792fe86895a3`
**Deployment mode**
Built from source with the adapter-utils and server test suites.
## What Changed
- Bound each host retention site with a fixed local byte limit.
- Limited concurrent live HTTP/2 streams with one built-in stream limit.
- Bound each host forward and response-body read to its own HTTP/2
stream lifetime.
- Removed the process-wide byte ledger, its environment override, its
metrics, and its file-transport fallbacks.
- Added tests for the stream limit, host body budget, and sibling-stream
cancellation.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm vitest run --project adapter-utils`.
- Confirm that 996 adapter-utils tests pass.
- Confirm that `test_live_forward_work_never_passes_the_stream_limit`
passes.
- Confirm that `test_the_host_body_budget_matches_the_stream_limit`
passes.
- Confirm that the sibling-stream cancellation test passes.
- Run `pnpm tsc --noEmit`.
- Confirm that all pull request checks pass.
## Risks
The bridge no longer uses a process-wide byte ledger. A local bound or
stream limit that is too low can reject or delay valid work. The tests
cover the new limits and stream cancellation behavior.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex. Runtime model ID: GPT-5. The model used code
execution and repository tools. The runtime does not expose the 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip records first-party events, OpenTelemetry data, and local
run-log events
> - The code and documents used one term for these three data paths
> - This naming made the required review level unclear
> - This pull request names each data path in the module names,
documents, and code comments
> - The benefit is a clear review rule without a runtime change
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Issue type**
Unclear or confusing.
**Where is the issue?**
`packages/shared/src/telemetry/README.md`, `doc/observability.md`,
`doc/run-log-events.md`, and the duplex instrumentation modules.
**What's wrong?**
The repository used Telemetry for first-party events, OpenTelemetry
data, and local run-log events. This usage made the data path and review
level unclear.
**Suggested fix**
Use Telemetry only for Paperclip first-party events. Use Observability
for OpenTelemetry data. Use the run log for rows in
`heartbeat_run_events`.
Related public pull requests: #8476 and #9672.
## What Changed
- Rename the duplex instrumentation modules and identifiers from
`Telemetry` to `Observability`.
- Move the Observability and run-log contracts out of the Telemetry
README.
- Add `doc/observability.md` and `doc/run-log-events.md` as the
canonical documents.
- Add a file-path review rule to `AGENTS.md`.
- Correct the remaining code comments that name the wrong data path.
- Keep all event names, payloads, database records, spans, configuration
keys, environment variables, and runtime paths unchanged.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run packages/shared/src/telemetry/readme-contract.test.ts`
passes.
- `npx vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/published-exports.test.ts`
passes.
- `npx vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/startup-timing.test.ts` passes
with 42 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm --filter server typecheck` passes.
- The old module name does not remain in TypeScript or JSON files,
except for the intentional publication guard.
- CI and Greptile checks remain pending after PR creation.
## Risks
- The old duplex module subpath no longer has a compatibility shim. The
board accepted this intentional hard break.
- The new duplex module subpath stays blocked from package publication.
- The change has no runtime effect. The main risk is an incorrect
document or module reference.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5`, with tool use and code
review support.
## 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 described the issue in-PR with the documentation issue
fields
- [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 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>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100). -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The PR verify workflow gates every pull request; its slowest check
sets the feedback time for all contributors
> - The general-server test lane splits its vitest suites across five
runners with a duration-weighted partition
(`scripts/general-server-shard.mjs`)
> - The partition reads a duration manifest that was sampled on
2026-08-04, when the lane had 279 suites and 946s of serial time
> - The lane has since grown to 405 suites and 1274s; 126 suites had no
recorded duration and one suite grew from 37s to 123s
> - The stale weights made the partition uneven: in the fully green
actions run 32708351172, "General tests (server (2/5))" ran 364s and was
the slowest check in the whole run, while sibling shards ran 292-330s
> - This pull request refreshes the manifest with per-suite durations
measured from that same run
> - The benefit is a level five-shard split (255s ±1s of predicted suite
time per shard), which removes ~50s from the slowest PR check
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Describe the current behavior**
In the fully green PR actions run
[32708351172](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/32708351172)
(2026-08-24), the check "General tests (server (2/5))" completed in
364s. Its test step ran 315s while sibling shards ran 241-276s. It was
the slowest check in the run.
**Describe the improvement**
The duration manifest `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` is
stale. It holds 279 suites sampled on 2026-08-04, but the lane now has
405 suites. The 126 unknown suites fall back to the median weight
(~1.3s), and `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` grew from
37.4s to 123.3s. The partition therefore predicts a level split but
produces an uneven one. Refreshing the manifest restores the level split
without any code change.
**Expected impact**
All five server shards level at ~255s of predicted suite time (~310s job
time). The slowest PR check drops from 364s to about 317s, so the PR
critical path improves by roughly 50s.
## What Changed
- Regenerated `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` from actions
run 32708351172 (2026-08-24): 405 suites, 1274s total serial time (was
279 suites, 946s from 2026-08-04)
- Updated the `$comment` field to name the new sample run and date
- No code changes; the partition logic in
`scripts/general-server-shard.mjs` is untouched
## Verification
- Parsed all five "General tests (server (n/5))" job logs from run
32708351172 with the consecutive-completion-timestamp method described
in the manifest `$comment`; asserted that the parsed suite set equals
the exact file list that `run-vitest-stable.mjs` collects (405/405, no
misses, no extras)
- Ran `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-server --shard-index N --shard-count 5 --dry-run` for N=0..4
with the new manifest: each shard predicts 255s (±1s) of suite time, and
the five shards form a complete, non-overlapping cover of all 405 suites
- Ran `node --test
./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: 13/13 pass
## Risks
- Low risk. The change is data-only. Wrong weights cannot break
correctness: the partition always covers every suite exactly once, so
the worst case of a bad weight is an uneven shard, which is the current
state.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5`, agentic coding session
with tool use (Claude Code / Claude Agent SDK)
## 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 (no code change;
existing partition tests pass)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
(manifest `$comment` updated)
- [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
Related prior work: #11528 (balanced the serialized server shards by
recorded duration), #10923 (split serialized tests into five shards),
#11156 (split workspaces-a into two shards).
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The PR workflow runs the server vitest suite across sharded runners
because the suite is pinned to one worker.
> - In successful PR run 30930345729 (2026-08-04), shard `server (3/4)`
took 311 seconds of wall time and was the slowest check in the run.
> - The suite has grown to about 946 seconds of serial vitest time, but
the duration manifest was last sampled on 2026-08-01 at about 882
seconds.
> - This pull request refreshes the per-suite duration manifest from
that run's logs and splits the lane into five shards.
> - The benefit is a shorter PR critical path: each shard carries about
196 seconds of suite time, level with the other lanes.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10663 (previous split of this lane into four shards).
Related: #10923 splits the separate serialized-suites lane into five
shards. Both PRs touch `.github/workflows/pr.yml` in different matrix
blocks; whichever merges second needs a trivial rebase.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The `general-server` vitest lane runs in four shards with a duration
manifest sampled on 2026-08-01.
**Current behavior**
In PR run 30930345729, shard 3/4 ran for 311 seconds (273 seconds in the
test step) and was the longest check in the run. The suite now totals
about 946 seconds of serial vitest time.
**Proposed behavior**
Run the same suite set in five shards, balanced with a per-suite
duration manifest refreshed from that run's shard logs (279 suites
measured by diffing consecutive completion timestamps).
**Reason and benefit**
The refreshed LPT partition balances at about 196 seconds of suite time
per shard (about 240 seconds per job), level with the other PR lanes. No
test coverage is lost.
**Breaking changes**
None. The change only alters the CI partition size and the duration
manifest.
## What Changed
- Bump the `general-server` shard matrix in `.github/workflows/pr.yml`
from four to five shards.
- Refresh `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` from the
2026-08-04 run's shard logs.
- Update `SHARD_COUNT` in
`scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` to five.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` — 9/9
pass, including the complete non-overlapping partition proof and the
duration-balance check.
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` — 2/2
pass.
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` — 7/7 pass.
- A 5-way dry-run partition covers all suites exactly once with equal
projected weights.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change only alters CI partition size and duration
weights; the suite set is unchanged.
- One more runner is used per PR run for this lane.
- Stale duration weights degrade gracefully: suites missing from the
manifest get the median weight.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), Claude Code CLI, model ID `claude-fable-5`,
extended thinking with tool use enabled.
## 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
(workflow comments explain the new shard math)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] 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: Claude <claude@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Pull request CI must give contributors fast and stable feedback.
> - The `general-server` Vitest lane runs many single-worker server
suites.
> - A recent completed PR run showed this lane as the slowest completed
check.
> - Three shards still left one runner with the largest share of work.
> - This pull request splits that lane into four duration-balanced
shards.
> - The benefit is a shorter critical path for the same server test
coverage.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this CI maintenance change.
**Pre-submission checklist**
- I confirmed this improves existing behavior. It does not add a new
command, endpoint, or concept.
- I searched open public issues and pull requests for related CI
sharding work.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The pull request workflow's `general-server` Vitest lane.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting. This affects GitHub Actions CI and the Vitest shard
duration manifest.
**Current behavior**
The `general-server` lane uses three shards. The server suites now total
about 880 seconds of serial Vitest wall time. The slowest shard was
about 313 seconds in the measured run.
**Proposed behavior**
The `general-server` lane uses four shards. Each shard receives about
220 seconds of predicted suite weight from the refreshed duration
manifest.
**Reason and benefit**
The slowest PR check controls how soon a reviewer can trust the PR. Four
balanced shards reduce the slowest `general-server` shard while keeping
the same suite selection rules.
**Breaking changes**
None. This only changes CI partitioning and duration data for existing
test suites.
**Additional context**
Related public searches found no exact open issue or pull request for
this `general-server` sharding change.
## What Changed
- Split the `general-server` CI matrix from three shards to four shards.
- Refreshed `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` with wall-time
weights from a recent completed PR run.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
- Dry-ran the four `general-server` shards locally during
implementation. The partition covers 300 unique suites with about 220.56
seconds of predicted weight per shard.
- Ran a local sensitive-data scan before push. It found only test
filenames that contain words such as `secret` or `token`, not credential
values.
## Risks
Low risk. The main risk is that the duration manifest becomes stale as
suite costs move. Missing suites fall back to the median weight, so the
lane still runs if the manifest is incomplete.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with tool use and local command 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
- [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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Its PR CI runs the general-server vitest lane pinned to
`maxWorkers=1` and sharded across 3 runners (introduced in #8360)
> - Suites were assigned to shards round-robin by sorted file index, so
shard test time was unbalanced: a recent PR run split 73s / 153s / 115s,
and the heaviest shard made "General tests (server 2/3)" the slowest
check in the whole workflow at 314s wall
> - The slowest shard sets the lane's wall time, so unbalanced
partitions waste the other two runners and stretch the PR critical path
> - This pull request replaces the round-robin assignment with a
deterministic longest-processing-time partition weighted by a checked-in
per-suite duration manifest
> - The benefit is near-even shard weights (projected 113s / 113s / 113s
with the current manifest), taking roughly 40s off the PR critical path
with no reduction in coverage
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #8360 (introduced the 3-way general-server sharding this PR
rebalances)
- No public issue exists. Problem: the general-server test lane's
round-robin shard assignment ignores per-suite duration, so one shard
can carry multiple 30s+ suites while another finishes in half the time;
the slowest shard alone determines the check's wall time.
## What Changed
- `scripts/general-server-shard.mjs` (new): manifest loader and
deterministic LPT (longest-processing-time) partitioner; suites missing
from the manifest get the median recorded weight, and a missing or
malformed manifest degrades to uniform weights so the lane never fails
on stale data
- `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` (new): per-suite
duration manifest sampled from a real PR run (240 suites); the
`$comment` field documents how to regenerate it
- `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`: both shard-selection sites (run and
`--dry-run`) now use the balanced partition instead of index round-robin
- `scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: 6 new tests
covering skew-balance vs round-robin, determinism, median fallback for
unlisted suites, malformed-manifest degradation, manifest coverage of
the current suite set, and real-partition balance
- `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-rewake-throttle.test.ts`:
hardened the `afterEach` sweep — post-run bookkeeping (run-event
records, follow-up wake scheduling) can still insert rows briefly after
a run reaches a terminal status, and a late insert landing between the
`agent_wakeup_requests` and `agents` deletes failed teardown with a
foreign-key violation on the first CI attempt of this PR; the sweep now
retries so a late background write cannot take down the shard
- `release-verify.yml` shares the same runner script and inherits the
balancing with no workflow change
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` — 9/9
pass (run against current master)
- `npx vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-rewake-throttle.test.ts`
— 6/6 pass against embedded Postgres with the hardened teardown
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` — 2/2
pass
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --dry-run` with each shard flag
shows every suite assigned exactly once across the 3 shards, with
projected weights ~113s each
## Risks
- Low risk: partition changes which runner executes which suite, not
what runs; a completeness test asserts every suite is assigned to
exactly one shard
- The duration manifest will drift as suites are added/changed; unlisted
suites get the median weight and a coverage test flags when the manifest
covers less than half the suite set, so drift degrades balance
gracefully rather than breaking the lane
> 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
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic), extended thinking
enabled, agentic tool use (file edits, shell, test execution) via Claude
Code
## 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: Claude (Paperclip SWE) <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Nicky Leach
Devin Foley