## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The runner package defines a provider-neutral protocol and semantic
action catalog.
> - Catalog membership alone must not grant access to an action.
> - Each run needs current company, actor, task, claim, mode, and
application-binding authority.
> - Mutating actions also need safe retry behavior and durable receipts.
> - This pull request adds a package-local authority and dispatch layer.
> - The benefit is a small and testable trust boundary before server
integration lands.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11962
This pull request replaces one bounded part of the archived large runner
change.
## What Changed
- Add run-scoped tool projection and optional tool discovery.
- Require an explicit application binding before an action is visible.
- Intersect actor claims with claims delegated to the run.
- Recheck company, actor, task, mode, state, role, claim, and policy
authority before each call.
- Validate action input and output with the canonical catalog schemas.
- Redact protected values and keep raw tool content out of semantic
receipts.
- Require atomic idempotency claims for mutating actions.
- Replay exact completed retries and reject changed or concurrent
retries.
- Recover a durable completed receipt if the primary receipt commit
fails, without re-executing the mutation.
- Add bounded authorization records and PRP semantic input and result
receipts.
- Document that this change adds no server binding or production tool
installation.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm build`
- 60 package TypeScript tests pass.
- 56 Rust unit and integration tests pass.
- Protocol, replay, and cross-language conformance checks pass.
- `pnpm test:run` completed with 4,684 passing and 19 skipped tests. It
reproduced 32 local baseline failures across 9 unchanged server files;
all corresponding hosted test shards pass.
- Every applicable GitHub Actions gate passes. The Storybook job skipped
because this PR has no UI changes.
- Socket and Snyk pass with no findings. Superagent completed neutral
with zero annotations because its external sandbox did not start within
120 seconds.
- Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved actionable comments.
- The diff changes 11 files.
## Risks
The main risk is an authorization or idempotency error at the tool
boundary. The dispatcher fails closed for malformed authority,
unavailable receipt storage, stale authority, unauthorized actions,
protected input, invalid binding output, and unrecoverable receipt
completion. The receipt store must recover a completed mutation outcome
idempotently if its primary commit fails; otherwise the claim remains
reserved for operator recovery rather than allowing automated
re-execution. Unbound actions are absent. No server or provider installs
these tools in this change. Existing adapters and application behavior
do not change.
## 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 the affected tests locally and they pass; full-suite
baseline exceptions are documented above
- [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 Runner now has a durable PRP transport and a Codex
provider bridge.
> - Codex must use stable, provider-neutral action contracts before
Paperclip can grant run-scoped tool access.
> - A catalog must describe actions without granting permission to
discover or invoke them.
> - Generated inventory must stay synchronized with its TypeScript
source.
> - This pull request adds the canonical Codex-spine semantic action
catalog inside the runner package.
> - The benefit is a small review unit for schemas and inventory before
authorization and dispatch land.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting. This pull request extends private runner infrastructure
in `packages/paperclip-runner`.
**Problem or motivation**
The Codex provider bridge has no canonical description of the Paperclip
actions that a later authorization layer can project into a run.
Independent operation lists can drift in names, claims, task modes,
effects, and input bounds.
**Proposed solution**
Add one immutable v1 catalog for the first 27 Codex-spine actions. Give
each action a stable identifier, placement, effect, required claims,
supported task modes, and JSON Schema input and output contracts.
Generate a deterministic JSON inventory from that source and fail
package checks on drift.
**Alternatives considered**
The combined runner branch contains larger live and scenario catalogs
with authorization, bindings, labs, and other providers. That change is
too large for this review unit. A generic API escape hatch would also
bypass the operation-level boundary, so this catalog excludes it.
**Roadmap alignment**
This work supports the governed tool access direction in `ROADMAP.md`.
It does not add a tool gateway, application binding, server endpoint, or
production authorization decision.
**Additional context**
Refs #12111 and #11962. Pull request #12111 was squash-merged first.
This branch starts at the resulting `master` commit. Its delta is 10
files.
## What Changed
- Added 27 versioned, provider-neutral semantic action declarations for
the Codex spine.
- Added bounded JSON Schema input contracts and normalized operation
receipt output contracts.
- Added placement, effect, claim, mode, and role metadata.
- Added a deeply frozen public catalog and an operation lookup helper.
- Added a deterministic checked-in JSON inventory and generation
commands.
- Added a byte-for-byte drift gate to the package build.
- Added AJV schema compilation, mutation-bound, forged-field,
immutability, inventory, and non-executable-boundary tests.
- Exported only the catalog types and declarations from the existing
package root.
- Documented that catalog membership does not grant discovery,
authorization, dispatch, or application binding.
- Kept server code, UI code, other providers, scenario-only actions,
labs, generic API access, authorization, dispatch, and receipts
processing out of this pull request.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` passes.
- TypeScript protocol tests pass: 8 Node tests and 49 Vitest tests.
- All package Rust tests and conformance and replay parity checks pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner
check:semantic-action-catalog` passes.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passes.
- `pnpm build` passes.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passes.
- Prettier and `git diff --check` pass for the changed source and
documentation files.
- The generated catalog matches its source byte for byte.
- The secret scan is clean.
- The delta against `master` is 10 files. `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged.
- `pnpm test:run` completed locally with 4,692 passing tests, 19 skipped
tests, and 24 failures in 8 unchanged server test files. The failures
reproduce the established local macOS path-alias, listener, and
workspace-runtime baseline. No changed-file test failed. Linux CI
remains the repository handoff authority.
- The full Linux PR workflow passes, including the aggregate `verify`
gate.
- Snyk, Socket, Superagent security, and supply-chain checks pass.
- Greptile is 5/5 with no actionable comments, recommendations, or
follow-ups.
- Storybook visual regression skipped by design because this pull
request changes no UI file.
- Browser and migration tests are not applicable because this pull
request changes no server, UI, database, or migration file.
## Risks
Production behavior is unchanged because no consumer projects this
catalog into a provider run. The main risks are contract drift,
unbounded mutation input, forged scope fields, accidental executable
authority, and generated inventory drift. Closed input schemas, explicit
bounds, a frozen catalog, tests, and the byte drift gate cover these
risks. The later authorization layer must still bind every action to the
active run and company before discovery or invocation.
I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This change is private contract infrastructure
for the governed tool access direction. It does not duplicate a shipped
or public product surface.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 was used. The exact serving model ID and context
size were not exposed. The model used high reasoning, repository tools,
GitHub tools, and local 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 (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
- [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>
Dotta