## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Claude local adapter can run agent turns through an ACP (Agent
Client Protocol) server, `claude-agent-acp`, instead of the plain CLI
> - Two separate packages each pin their own copy of that dependency:
`packages/adapters/claude-local` (the server-side adapter) and
`packages/paperclip-runner` (which builds the provider pack baked into
every managed sandbox image)
> - `claude-local` moved to `^0.73.0` in #12730, but `paperclip-runner`
was never bumped past `0.70.0` — nothing keeps the two in sync when only
one changes
> - That split means a sandbox image built from `paperclip-runner`'s
provider pack ships a `claude-agent-acp` the server-side adapter was
never actually compatible with
> - This pull request bumps `paperclip-runner`'s pin to `0.73.0`, the
only version that satisfies both packages' declared ranges at once, and
fixes the matching hardcoded version assertion in
`docker/daytona-runner/Dockerfile`
> - The benefit is one consistent, compatible `claude-agent-acp` version
across both the server host and every sandbox image built from this
source, instead of a silent split that only surfaces as a runtime
failure
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists for this specific split; opening directly per
CONTRIBUTING.md path B, following the bug report template fields.
**What happened?**
`packages/paperclip-runner/package.json` pins
`@agentclientprotocol/claude-agent-acp` at an exact `0.70.0`.
`packages/adapters/claude-local/package.json` requires `^0.73.0` (added
in #12730, 2026-09-02). Nobody re-synced `paperclip-runner`'s pin after
that change — the two packages' dependency graphs are independent, so a
bump in one doesn't propagate to the other. `paperclip-runner`'s copy is
what the fleet sandbox image's provider pack actually ships, so every
managed sandbox built from current source carries a `claude-agent-acp`
version the server-side adapter's own declared compatibility range
excludes.
**Expected behavior**
The two packages' `claude-agent-acp` pins should stay within a mutually
compatible range, so a sandbox image built from this source always ships
a version the server-side adapter actually supports.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Check `packages/adapters/claude-local/package.json`'s
`@agentclientprotocol/claude-agent-acp` range (`^0.73.0`).
2. Check `packages/paperclip-runner/package.json`'s pin for the same
package (`0.70.0` before this PR).
3. Note that `^0.73.0` on a `0.x` version only admits patch releases
(`>=0.73.0 <0.74.0` per semver caret rules), so `0.70.0` falls outside
it.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` as of this PR (paperclip-runner still at `0.70.0` prior to this
change; claude-local's `^0.73.0` requirement landed in #12730).
**Deployment mode**
Any deployment that runs `claude_local` agents through the ACP engine
against a sandbox image built from `packages/paperclip-runner`'s
provider pack (managed cloud sandboxes in particular).
Related PRs for context (not duplicates — none of these touch
`paperclip-runner`'s pin):
- #12730 — introduced the `^0.73.0` requirement in `claude-local`
- #11873 — the last time `paperclip-runner`'s pin moved (`0.69.0` →
`0.70.0`)
- #13105 — separately made an unavailable ACP engine a hard failure
instead of a silent CLI fallback, which is what turned this version
split into a visible, run-blocking error rather than a quiet downgrade
## What Changed
- Bump `@agentclientprotocol/claude-agent-acp` from `0.70.0` to `0.73.0`
(exact pin, matching this package's existing pin style for its other
agent-CLI dependencies) in `packages/paperclip-runner/package.json`.
- Update the corresponding hardcoded version assertion (`test
"$(claude-agent-acp --version)" = "0.70.0"`) in
`docker/daytona-runner/Dockerfile` to `0.73.0`, so its own build-time
check stays accurate instead of failing on the next build for an
unrelated reason.
- `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally **not** included —
`pr-trusted.yml`'s `Validate dependency resolution and regenerate stale
lockfile` step already regenerates it for the merge tree and hands it to
downstream `--frozen-lockfile` jobs as an artifact, so a manual lockfile
commit here would just be stale the moment CI runs.
## Verification
- `0.73.0` is a real published version on npm (confirmed via `npm view
@agentclientprotocol/claude-agent-acp versions`), and it's the *only*
version satisfying claude-local's `^0.73.0` range, so this isn't a guess
at compatibility — it's the unique intersection of both packages'
declared ranges.
- `grep -rn "0\.70\.0" docker/ packages/paperclip-runner/package.json`
after this change shows no remaining stale references to the old pin.
- I did not run a full local install/test pass against a hand-updated
lockfile, since regenerating one locally would conflict with leaving
`pnpm-lock.yaml` untouched per the note above; CI's own
lockfile-regeneration step is the intended verification path for a
manifest-only dependency bump like this one.
- Downstream/full verification (does a sandbox image actually built with
this pin work end-to-end) is tracked separately in `paperclip-cloud` —
an unrelated internal-only repo, so not linked here — where a sibling
fix restores the ACP servers to the runtime `PATH` in the fleet sandbox
image itself; both fixes are needed together for a working sandbox, but
this PR is scoped to the version pin alone.
## Risks
- Low risk: single-line dependency version bump plus a matching
test-assertion update, no code changes. `0.73.0` is a patch release
within claude-local's own already-declared-safe range, so there's no
reason to expect it changes behavior tenants depend on.
- The main risk is unknown breaking changes between `claude-agent-acp`
0.70.0 and 0.73.0 that aren't caught by the version-string assertion
alone (that check only confirms the binary reports the right version,
not that its behavior is unchanged). I have not audited that package's
own changelog between those versions.
- `docker/daytona-runner/Dockerfile` is a parallel/reference image (per
its own header comment, meant to stay aligned with the private
`paperclip-cloud/fleet-sandbox-image/Dockerfile`, which is out of scope
here) — this PR does not touch that other Dockerfile.
## Model Used
Claude Sonnet 5 (`claude-sonnet-5`), via Claude Code, with tool use
(file edits, shell/git, `gh` CLI, `npm view` for version verification).
No extended-thinking mode. Standard Claude Code context window.
## 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 — see Verification: a
manifest-only bump with the lockfile intentionally left to CI's own
regeneration step; no local test run applicable
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable — version-pin bump
only, no new behavior to test
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — none
applicable
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green — pending CI run on this PR
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups —
pending review
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the control plane for agents that perform work.
> - Paperclip Runner connects durable provider sessions to individual
task runs through PRP.
> - Provider continuity and per-run authority are different lifetimes.
> - The existing implementation mixed those lifetimes and lost event
metadata between provider frames, runnerd, persistence, API
sanitization, and the task thread.
> - That caused failed continuation, missing progress and Plans,
duplicate replies, hidden failures, and unsafe recovery.
> - This repair gives every heartbeat fresh authority, preserves
qualified provider-session continuity, and restores one lossless
presentation path without changing direct adapters.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A second native heartbeat could reuse tickets, leases, command receipts,
sequence state, and run identity from the first heartbeat. Provider
phase and item identity could be lost before the UI read them. Redaction
could corrupt protocol discriminators while still missing malformed
credential tails. The task thread could fold progress into the final
response, hide failures, or show more than one final answer. Native
Codex also exposed approval modes that do not yet have a durable
approval bridge.
**Expected behavior**
Each heartbeat uses a new PRP authority epoch. Codex and OpenCode
preserve exact qualified provider sessions; ACPX emits an explicit
continuity event when its qualified process-replacement policy is used.
Every accepted provider event is presented, classified as internal, or
surfaced as unsupported. The task page shows chronological progress,
reasoning summaries, activity, Plans, interactions, terminal failures,
and exactly one final reply. Direct adapters retain their existing path.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Enable the unified experimental Paperclip Runner setting.
2. Create a local native Codex, OpenCode, ACPX Claude, or ACPX Codex
agent.
3. Run response, Plan, structured-question/resume, restart,
cancellation, and failure scenarios.
4. Reload the task while active, waiting, failed, and settled.
5. On the old implementation, observe stale run authority, missing
classifications, incomplete output, or duplicated/folded replies.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The repair is based directly on `master` at
`87d05e194b643810d16d20612115acd01d735d43`.
**Deployment mode**
Local development with the embedded database.
Related work: Refs #12616, #12646, #12666, #12685, and #12700.
## What Changed
- Rotates PRP control-plane, outbox, ticket, lease, command, receipt,
and sequence authority for each heartbeat while carrying forward only a
validated provider-session identity.
- Reads `control-plane-state.json`, validates both durable schemas and
lifecycle values, resumes coherent current runs, archives qualified
settled authority, and quarantines malformed or mismatched scoped state
without moving ambiguous live legacy state.
- Preserves Codex provider phase and stable item identities so
commentary remains progress and only `final_answer` becomes final.
- Adds raw OpenCode HTTP/SSE boundary coverage and canonical reasoning
lifecycle mapping.
- Makes ACPX normalization lossless for visible reasoning, tool
lifecycle metadata, stable bounded identities, Plan revisions,
structured requests, failures, and qualified process replacement. Only
the compatible terminal assistant message is promoted as final.
- Applies schema-aware redaction before generic JWT-shaped detection and
scans every diagnostic string leaf. Malformed raw/escaped quoted
credential tails are redacted in both server and durable Rust state.
- Restores snapshot-style chronological task presentation, expandable
tool activity, inline Plan cards, visible waiting/resume/cancel/failure
states, and exactly one final answer.
- Makes `never` the only qualified native Codex permission mode and
rejects unsupported persisted native modes with remediation. OpenCode
and ACPX policies remain intact.
- Keeps the unified experimental Runner setting as the only enablement
flag. Onboarding and direct Codex, Claude, and OpenCode stay on their
legacy execution/finalization paths.
- Adds cross-language goldens, authority/recovery/fault coverage, exact
response/count assertions, and native plus legacy acceptance scenarios.
## Verification
- Pull-request GitHub Actions run Rust formatting/tests, TypeScript
checks, server/UI tests, builds, protocol drift checks, browser E2E, and
security scans.
- A separate workflow-only validation ref is pinned directly on this PR
head and runs the 35-cell paid local matrix: three core scenarios plus
structured-question resume and restart/resume for native Codex, native
OpenCode, ACPX Claude, ACPX Codex, and direct Codex/Claude/OpenCode.
Run: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/33682434315
- Acceptance requires exact single visible replies, monotonic sequences,
matching envelope discriminators, one semantic terminal, one run
terminal, no unresolved interaction, no duplicate mutation, no secret
leakage, provider continuity, and zero native rows for direct adapters.
- Per maintainer direction, tests are running in GitHub Actions rather
than on the slower local host. Only formatters and static diff checks
were run locally.
## Risks
- Recovery from old or partial filesystem state is sensitive. The repair
fails closed, preserves active or unverifiable authority, and
quarantines only state whose scoped ownership is safe to move.
- Provider event formats can change. Closed validators and boundary
goldens turn new or malformed events into visible diagnostics instead of
silent drops.
- Shared task presentation could affect direct adapters. Runtime-fact
gating plus the direct-adapter matrix protect the existing path.
- Managed and remote providers are not qualified here. Shared code
continues to compile and fail safely, but live qualification is
deferred.
> 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 based on GPT-5. The exact deployed snapshot and
context-window size are not exposed to this task. It used agentic
reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, Git, parallel subagents,
and GitHub Actions.
## 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 and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass (intentionally deferred to
GitHub Actions)
- [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
- [ ] The paid local-provider matrix is 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The runner package is useful only when the application can start,
observe, and recover a native Codex run safely.
> - Existing direct adapters must keep their current execution and
finalization paths.
> - The application boundary therefore needs additive persistence,
authorization, coordination, and recovery behind an explicit
experimental adapter.
> - This pull request adds that Codex-only boundary without activating
generalized providers, remote environments, or the later task/SDK
surfaces.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Shared contracts, database persistence, adapter utilities, server
native-runtime services, and the experimental Paperclip Runner adapter.
**Problem or motivation**
The already-landed runner package has a qualified Codex path, but the
application needs durable native-run state, guarded runtime selection,
authenticated coordination, tool security, finalization, and recovery
before the experimental adapter can be exercised safely.
**Proposed solution**
Add a Codex-only `paperclip_runner` application path behind the existing
default-off native-runner setting. Bind native state and coordination to
company/run identity, preserve persisted-run recovery, and leave every
direct adapter on its existing legacy execution path.
**Alternatives considered**
The earlier stack boundary introduced a generalized executor and
remote-environment lifecycle here. That made this PR depend on
implementations in higher PRs and changed reusable sandbox behavior
globally. Those pieces are now deferred together to #12592.
**Roadmap alignment**
ROADMAP.md does not list a conflicting native-runner integration
project. This change adds the application boundary for the existing
Runner architecture.
## What Changed
- Added native run/result/finalization/provider-trace persistence,
shared validators, and idempotent migration/replay coverage.
- Added guarded Codex-only runtime selection, authenticated PRP
coordination, recovery, finalization, and interaction services.
- Added run/company-bound tool-gateway authorization, credential
redaction, SSRF protections, and replay-safe behavior.
- Added the explicit `paperclip_runner` adapter behind the default-off
rollout setting.
- Preserved legacy answered-question wake projection and direct-adapter
execution/finalization paths.
- Hardened cancellation so only owned in-memory child processes are
signaled; persisted recycled PIDs/process groups are never trusted.
- Retained the narrow Claude ACPX isolated-context security follow-up
discovered after #12590.
- Deferred the generalized executor, provider ingress, remote lifecycle,
SDK/lab/eval work, release-process changes, and lockfile.
## Verification
- Changed-file delta against `master`: 133 files.
- GitHub Actions is the authoritative verification environment for this
PR.
- Full CI, security, and Greptile review will run on this lowest
unmerged stack PR.
- Local tests/build/typecheck were not run because this checkout is
resource constrained.
- Static diff/reference checks pass, and `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged.
## Risks
- This touches central heartbeat and agent-route code, so legacy
compatibility is the primary risk.
- Runtime selection remains Codex-only and explicit; direct Codex,
Claude, OpenCode, process, HTTP, and plugin adapters remain on their
existing paths.
- Fresh native starts fail closed while the rollout flag is off;
persisted native records remain readable and recoverable.
- Cancellation, company/run binding, tool calls, status decisions, and
completion writes are guarded or replay-safe.
> 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.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with repository tools, code execution, and
parallel agent 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 linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR
following the relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal or 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 — GitHub Actions is
authoritative for this resource-constrained checkout
- [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 and security gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open actionable findings
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge
## Stack
- Position: 3 of 5 overall; lowest of 3 currently unmerged
- Base: `master`
- Previous:
[#12590](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12590), qualified
Claude ACPX runtime — merged
- Next: [#12592](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12592),
generalized Codex executor, task experience, and developer SDKs
---------
Co-authored-by: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The runner needs repeatable tests at the provider and control-plane
boundaries
> - Network services and live providers cannot produce deterministic
conformance results
> - Small in-memory adapters can exercise the same public contracts
without production side effects
> - This pull request adds a deterministic harness driver, control-plane
adapter, and fixture runner
> - It exposes these helpers only from the testing entry point
> - The benefit is stable cross-boundary verification for later runtime
changes
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
packages/paperclip-runner testing and conformance support
**Problem or motivation**
The public runner contracts have unit tests, but later provider and
server slices need a deterministic way to exercise session, event,
replay, checkpoint, and result behavior together.
**Proposed solution**
Add in-memory implementations of the harness-driver and control-plane
ports. Add a canonical conformance fixture and runner. Export these
utilities only from `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner/testing`.
**Alternatives considered**
The tests could start a real provider or server. That would make the
conformance gate slower, less portable, and dependent on credentials or
network state.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It
does not enable a production adapter or change current app execution.
## What Changed
- Add a deterministic harness-driver implementation.
- Add an in-memory control-plane adapter with replay and checkpoint
support.
- Add a canonical provider-neutral conformance fixture.
- Add a reusable conformance runner and contract tests.
- Export the helpers from the package testing entry point only.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The branch changes 10 files relative to its declared base.
## Risks
Low risk. This pull request adds test-only adapters and conformance
helpers. It does not select a runtime or change production behavior.
Contract tests verify event identity, replay, checkpoints, and
deterministic results.
> 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`, with agentic reasoning, 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 either linked an existing public issue or described the
issue in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Paperclip Runner package needs one provider-neutral session loop
> - Native execution contracts now define the accepted input and output
> - Backends still need bounded execution, recovery, and control-plane
ports
> - This pull request adds that package-local session runtime
> - It does not change server runtime selection or start the
experimental runner
> - The benefit is a tested execution core for later provider and server
layers
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
packages/paperclip-runner
**Problem or motivation**
The runner contracts do not yet have a shared session loop. Each backend
would otherwise duplicate event handoff, terminal handling, recovery
cursors, timeouts, and checkpoint behavior.
**Proposed solution**
Add the native session runtime, backend interfaces, control-plane port,
harness driver contract, deterministic conformance helpers, and bounded
tests.
**Alternatives considered**
The server could own this loop. That would mix provider process behavior
with server persistence and authority logic.
**Roadmap alignment**
This is part of the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It
does not enable a production adapter.
## What Changed
- Add a provider-neutral native session execution loop.
- Add recovery cursor reconciliation and checkpoint hooks.
- Add bounded timeout and governed-wait behavior.
- Add harness driver and control-plane conformance helpers.
- Add deterministic backend and session runtime tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Protocol generation and manifest checks pass.
- The branch changes 14 files relative to its declared base.
## Risks
The main risk is a session that hangs, duplicates an event, or restores
the wrong cursor after reconnect. Tests cover terminal events, timeouts,
durable handoff, duplicate receipts, recovery, continuity breaks, and
checkpoint updates. The change remains package-local.
> 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`, with agentic reasoning, 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 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 and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The runner package now has protocol, transport, provider, catalog,
and authorization foundations.
> - Its first upstream package boundary should expose only the
implemented runtime and test-helper surfaces.
> - Rust correctness belongs in the repository existing build
verification, without introducing a parallel release process.
> - Direct package creation must build the files declared by the package
manifest.
> - This pull request defines the minimal package API and verifies the
optimized runner binaries in the existing PR and release Build jobs.
> - The benefit is a production-ready runner package boundary with
minimal build-process change.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11962
This pull request replaces one bounded part of the archived large runner
change. It follows the package-local authorization change in #12126.
## What Changed
- Export only `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner` and
`@paperclipai/paperclip-runner/testing`.
- Keep Node-only fixture loading and semantic conformance helpers out of
the runtime root.
- Add a provider-neutral semantic conformance kit with stable JSON
comparison and fail-closed input checks.
- Keep deferred SDK, eval, browser, React, lab, and command surfaces
private.
- Pin the runner Rust toolchain to 1.97.1 with the minimal profile and
`rustfmt`.
- Run the Rust workspace tests in release mode.
- Launch the optimized `paperclip-runnerd` and fake-harness binaries in
process-level integration coverage.
- Add one `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` step
to each existing PR and release Build job.
- Make the existing server `prepack` lifecycle run its existing build
after it prepares UI assets.
- Document that no production adapter starts runnerd yet.
This revision adds no standalone GitHub Actions job. It adds no server
runner dependency or runner vendoring. It adds no Docker bootstrap or
clean-consumer harness. It does not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all`
- 66 TypeScript tests
- 8 protocol contract tests
- 56 Rust unit and integration tests
- Release-mode integration coverage launches the optimized runnerd and
fake-harness binaries.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/server-package-build-script.test.ts` (2 tests)
- Clean `pnpm pack` from `server/` rebuilt the server and produced both
`package/dist/index.js` and `package/dist/index.d.ts`.
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` (8
tests)
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `git diff --check`
- No `pnpm-lock.yaml` diff.
- The diff changes 12 files.
## Risks
The runner adds Rust work to the existing Build jobs. These jobs can
take longer on a cold cache. The pinned toolchain makes contributor and
CI behavior reproducible. Cargo tests use `--release` to verify
optimized executables. The server prepack lifecycle now performs the
build that its published entry points require. This can make direct
server packing slower. This pull request does not wire runnerd into the
server. It does not select runnerd for any adapter. Existing application
execution and finalization paths remain unchanged.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. Agentic coding mode used repository tools, code
execution, and automated tests.
## 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>
Nicky Leach
Dotta