## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses browser tests to protect critical operator flows.
> - The trusted pull request workflow runs the E2E catalog on three
existing runners.
> - Smoke Lab was one 168-second spec, so the shard scheduler could not
divide it.
> - The spec also repeated service-start calls, page loads, and
full-page screenshots.
> - This pull request removes that repeated work and divides the
scenario catalog into two independent specs.
> - The benefit is a shorter Smoke Lab run and a balanced E2E lane
without more AWS capacity.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: #10629
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves the trusted pull request E2E lane and its Smoke Lab
Playwright coverage.
**Current behavior**
Smoke Lab is one indivisible 168-second CI spec. It starts services for
every scenario, loads the same evidence page twice, and captures a
full-page success screenshot for all 56 lifecycle steps.
**Proposed behavior**
Start Smoke Lab services once per spec. Keep the per-scenario fixture
reset. Capture one representative success screenshot per scenario and
keep every failure screenshot. Run P1–P4 and P5–P7 as separate specs so
the existing duration-aware scheduler can put them on different runners.
**Reason and benefit**
The optimized lifecycle reduced local Smoke Lab wall time from 57.68
seconds to 37.04 seconds. This is a 35.8% reduction. The two halves also
let the existing three runners target about 125, 124, and 124 seconds of
recorded spec work instead of about 168, 125, and 124 seconds.
**Breaking changes**
None. The same seven scenarios and eight lifecycle steps still run. The
result API still records every step. Successful non-connect steps no
longer attach redundant screenshots.
## What Changed
- Reused one Smoke Lab service start within each spec while retaining
isolated fixture installation for every scenario.
- Removed the duplicate catalog evidence navigation.
- Reduced success screenshots from 56 to 7 while retaining screenshots
for every failed step.
- Split the shared lifecycle runner into P1–P4 and P5–P7 specs.
- Mark each successful split result as partial and keep dashboard health
amber until one run covers the full catalog.
- Updated the duration manifest and contributor docs for the split.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on Node.js 24.20.0.
- `pnpm build` passed on Node.js 24.20.0.
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` passed 9 tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/tools/smoke-lab-matrix.test.ts`
passed 8 tests.
- Both split specs passed together on Node.js 24.20.0 after the review
fixes: 2 passed in 35.7 seconds; shell wall time was 36.86 seconds.
- The pre-change Smoke Lab baseline passed with a 57.68-second shell
wall time. The optimized unsplit A/B run passed with a 37.04-second
shell wall time.
- The full local E2E catalog passed 44 tests and skipped 2 tests. One
existing `pipelines-tutorial-flow.spec.ts` assertion failed again when
run alone.
- The broad local unit run reproduced failures in untouched
workspace-runtime suites. Typecheck, build, shard tests, and all changed
browser coverage pass. CI remains the authoritative full-suite result.
## Risks
- The split duration weights use the measured local reduction and the
previous 168-second CI weight. They should be refreshed after two real
pull request runs.
- Service state is shared within each half. Fixture installation still
runs before every scenario to reset connection, policy, and catalog
state.
- Each half records passed execution with partial coverage. Dashboard
health recognizes the partial flag and stays amber because no single
runner covers the full catalog. A failed half still records failed/red.
- Fewer success screenshots reduce redundant artifacts. Every scenario
keeps its connect screenshot, and every failure still captures evidence.
> 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, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context window are
not exposed in this session. The model used agentic reasoning, code
editing, shell execution, browser testing, and GitHub tools.
## 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
> - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters,
UI surfaces, and operator verification
> - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated
or human review
> - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs
stay below the 100-file review limit
> - This pull request is split 8/8 and focuses on end-to-end coverage,
operator docs, evals, and release notes
> - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while
preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Related parity reference: #9534
- Problem: The complete stack needs discoverable browser scenarios,
operator guidance, threat modeling, eval coverage, and a parity proof
before merge.
- Proposed solution: Adds MCP user-story and Smoke Lab e2e suites,
docs/evals/release notes, the skill update, and the root e2e driver
script registration.
- Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or
rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor
of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves.
- Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access
work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate
roadmap initiative.
- Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/07-ui-apps-activation`.
- Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete
eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate
remains empty.
- Requested review: QA for flag audit and e2e/browser acceptance;
Greptile on every PR.
## What Changed
- Adds MCP user-story and Smoke Lab e2e suites, docs/evals/release
notes, the skill update, and the root e2e driver script registration.
- Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable.
- Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven
stack levels.
## Verification
- `pnpm typecheck`
- `node --check scripts/e2e-mcp-user-stories.mjs`
- `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
--list` — 43 tests discovered
- `git diff pap10341-split/08-e2e-docs
6b40e3876d9297105d4ec306e47e46d351c86172` — empty (0 bytes)
## Risks
- Browser suites depend on runtime services and environment setup; this
PR validates discovery locally while QA owns full flag-on/flag-off
execution.
- Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers;
mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy.
- Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from
#9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge.
> 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context
window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and
code-execution tools 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] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link
explicitly required for this coordinated split stack
- [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
- [ ] 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
## Stack Coordination
- Internal execution plan:
[PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan)
- Parity reference: #9534
- Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563
- Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff
at #9563.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Dotta