## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip Runner needs repeatable evaluation contracts.
> - Evaluation code must stay separate from provider launch and
production orchestration.
> - Offline fixtures need stable compatibility, scoring, traceability,
and report rules.
> - Published Runner consumers need only the supported evaluation
contract surface.
> - This pull request adds offline evaluation tooling and a
workspace-private matrix kernel.
> - The benefit is deterministic evaluation without credentials or paid
provider calls.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11297
This pull request extracts the offline evaluation unit from the earlier
aggregate Runner work.
## What Changed
- Add a workspace-private, provider-neutral evaluation matrix kernel.
- Add the public `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner/evals` compatibility and
native execution contracts.
- Add fail-closed runnerd artifact and protocol compatibility checks.
- Add deterministic workflow catalogs, scoring, traceability, and report
generation.
- Add sanitized Codex, OpenCode, and ACPX fixtures.
- Add package-boundary and clean-consumer checks.
- Add the eval package manifest to the Docker dependency stage.
- Add the generated protocol fixture digest without changing the
lockfile.
## Verification
GitHub Actions must run:
- Runner TypeScript and Rust type checks.
- Runner unit and protocol tests.
- Evaluation kernel tests.
- Workflow traceability checks.
- Clean-consumer and package-boundary checks.
- Repository test, type-check, build, policy, and security gates.
No local test command was run. The repository owner requested
GitHub-only verification.
## Risks
This is a large greenfield review surface with 51 files. The code does
not launch a live provider or load credentials. Package and protocol
drift fail closed. The workspace lockfile remains under the existing
CI-owned process.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with the GPT-5 agent model. The work used high reasoning,
repository inspection, tool use, and parallel code review.
## 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
- [ ] 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The runner package already provides the production protocol and
execution spine.
> - Contributors still need stable SDK surfaces, deterministic test
tools, and local inspection tools.
> - Those surfaces share generated contracts and must change as one
package boundary.
> - This pull request adds the package-local SDK, labs, examples, and
drift checks.
> - The benefit is a reviewable developer platform that does not change
application execution selection.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/paperclip-runner` — runner SDK, conformance tools, and
developer tooling.
**Problem or motivation**
The production runner spine is present, but package consumers cannot
build deterministic integrations, inspect sessions, or verify
provider-neutral behavior through supported surfaces.
**Proposed solution**
Add browser, React, standalone, live-session, scenario, conformance, and
evaluation surfaces. Add generated contract inventories and
package-local verification scripts. Keep production application routing
unchanged.
**Alternatives considered**
We considered splitting each generated catalog, SDK surface, and demo
into separate pull requests. Those changes share exports, fixtures, and
drift gates. Splitting them would create intermediate package states
that do not build.
**Roadmap alignment**
No overlapping item appears in `ROADMAP.md`. This work extends the
runner package that is already on `master`.
## What Changed
- Add browser, React, standalone, live-session, and issue-thread SDK
surfaces.
- Add deterministic mock control-plane, scenario, conformance, replay,
and evaluation tools.
- Add bounded Codex, OpenCode, and ACPX development transports and
fixtures.
- Keep deferred managed-provider execution fail-closed. Persisted
compatibility data remains readable.
- Add generated capability inventories with their source files and drift
checks.
- Add examples, package documentation, browser checks, and
clean-consumer checks.
- Preserve the reviewed protocol bounds, replay compatibility aliases,
process environment isolation, and semantic redaction limits.
- Update the ACPX package patch that the existing workspace patch
registry already tracks.
- Do not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`, repository workflows, server runtime
selection, or the application UI.
## Verification
GitHub Actions is the verification authority for this pull request. The
repository CI, package TypeScript and Rust checks, package tests,
generated-output drift checks, browser checks, security scans, and
Greptile review must pass on the exact head.
Local test suites were not run because this series uses parallel GitHub
Actions for verification.
## Risks
This is a large greenfield package change. The main risks are public
export drift, generated-output drift, and optional React consumer
compatibility. Package boundary checks, clean-consumer checks, and
browser tests cover those risks. Production adapter selection and server
execution are outside this pull request.
## Stack
1. **This PR:** runner SDK and developer tooling.
2. [Codex production server
integration](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12616).
3. [Provider-neutral task-thread
UI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12617).
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, high-reasoning mode, with tool use and code
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 described the issue in-PR following the feature request
template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [ ] 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 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
Dotta