## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Native runs report their outcome through paperclip_finish.
> - The server previously turned incomplete reports into human approval
requests.
> - Those requests could block a later successful run, even when no
person had requested review.
> - This pull request creates review cards only for explicit attention
requests and withdraws proven old fallback cards.
> - Agents receive useful completion feedback, while explicit approval
gates and task state protections remain in force.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related: #13266 removed reviews caused by policy upgrades. This change
removes the separate completion fallback.
**What happened?**
An agent reported needs_review while waiting for checks without
requesting a human decision. Paperclip created a generic Native
completion review. A later successful report could not complete the task
because that old card remained pending.
**Expected behavior**
Ordinary low-risk work completes after a valid done report, a successful
run, and workspace finalization. Incomplete work stays with the agent.
Explicit approval requests remain visible and must be resolved.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Complete a native run with needs_review and no attention requests.
2. Continue the task and submit a successful done report.
3. Observe that the old implementation leaves the task in review behind
a generic confirmation card.
## What Changed
- Require explicit attention requests to create native review cards.
Route each request independently and preserve pending or declined
decisions.
- Withdraw only pending system cards with matching old decision,
assessment, effect, contract, and prompt provenance. Preserve history
and explicit or answered requests.
- Reassess an affected current result without overwriting later task
edits, runs, contracts, or workspace failures.
- Return pending approval links and required actions through the
completion tool. Reject contradictory done reports and empty review
requests before accepting a result.
- Allow one corrective continuation for incomplete results, then expose
a recovery action.
- Update status fixtures, database regressions, runner tests, and the
completion contract documentation.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after merging current master.
- `pnpm build` passed after merging current master.
- The combined branch passed 89 completion and Agent Chat tests. Other
targeted tests passed: 170 external-chat and reconciliation tests; 50
runner-resume and control-plane tests; 13 arbiter tests; 7 chat delivery
tests; 21 runner completion and runtime-context tests.
- The full local test attempt exposed old review fixtures and a missing
fake-provider binary. The fixtures are fixed and the helper is built.
All affected suites pass in fresh reruns. The timing-sensitive Discord
test also passed on rerun.
- All latest-head CI checks passed, including build, typecheck, general
and serialized tests, runner verification, browser tests, and canary dry
run. Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved comments.
## Risks
- Cleanup changes existing pending cards. It requires exact system
provenance and only applies to low-risk agent-claim contracts. It does
not delete history or dismiss explicit requests.
- Status still commits after the turn and workspace finalization.
Completion feedback reports current constraints and does not claim an
early status commit.
- Incomplete reports now request a bounded corrective run instead of an
automatic approval. Repeated failures expose recovery.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and
test tools. The exact deployment identifier and context window size are
not exposed in this session.
## 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.
> - The native runtime records completion assessments and task
decisions.
> - An application update can change the assessment policy version.
> - The previous code treated that version change as a reason for human
review.
> - An upgrade alone does not give the user a new decision to make.
> - This change keeps existing decisions and withdraws obsolete upgrade
review cards.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A rules version change moved unfinished tasks into review and created a
card that said, "Review the superseding native policy assessment." The
task did not need new work or a human decision.
**Expected behavior**
New runs use the current rules. An upgrade leaves existing task
decisions alone. The saved policy version remains available in the audit
history.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Save a native run assessment and a task decision.
2. Change the native status policy version.
3. Run finalization reconciliation without new task evidence.
4. The previous code created a review card. The corrected code keeps the
saved assessment and decision.
Related context: #13038 changed the native policy version. Searches
found no duplicate fix for upgrade-only completion reviews.
## What Changed
- Remove policy-version mismatch as a reconciliation trigger.
- Withdraw pending cards only when their source decision, effect ledger,
creator, key, and prompt match the old upgrade-only review.
- Restore the previous status only while that decision and status
version remain current and no other review gate is pending.
- Preserve answered cards, real review requests, later task changes, and
historical assessments and decisions.
- Record cleanup activity and retire any corresponding chat review
actions.
- Isolate cleanup failures so one old card cannot block other cleanup or
normal finalization.
- Update the status conformance fixture, regression tests, and
architecture documentation.
## Verification
- Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/native-status-arbiter-corpus.test.ts` (23 tests,
including the 53-fixture status corpus).
- Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`.
- Passed: `git diff --check`.
- Passed: `pnpm build`.
- Passed: fresh Greptile review at 5/5 on `d24e5ecaf`, with no open
review threads.
- Passed: the 23 focused tests in the isolated full-suite environment.
- Local `pnpm test:run`: the server group finished with 10,638 passed
and one missing-fixture failure. Built the required
`fake-codex-app-server` fixture and reran the entire affected native
session-resume suite: 37/37 passed. The initial full command exited on
that server-group failure, so remaining groups are covered by CI.
- Passed: the workspace-runtime-exposure suite (25 tests, 3 platform
skips).
- Passed: all CI gates, including every test shard, browser tests,
typecheck, and build. The server shard passed on one retry after an
unrelated host-port conflict in the unchanged workspace-exposure tests.
- Cleanup tests cover repeat runs, real reviews, answered cards, later
statuses, newer decision identity, status changes back to review, other
pending requests, run scope, cleanup failures, retry, and live
publication failures.
## Risks
- Cleanup changes stored task state. It checks the exact obsolete
decision and status version under database locks before restoring
status.
- Pending approvals, interactions, and execution stages prevent
restoration out of review.
- The cleanup handles at most 100 matching cards per reconciliation
pass. It does not rewrite old decisions or accept an agent's completion
claim.
- New evidence and explicit task changes still use the existing
reconciliation paths. This change does not reevaluate old work merely
because Paperclip was updated.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact deployment identifier and context window
are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection,
code editing, shell 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Paperclip Runner provides durable, provider-neutral agent
execution.
> - The current stack supports qualified local providers but omits the
managed provider paths from the integration branch.
> - Claude Managed Agents and AWS AgentCore need explicit profile
qualification, durable recovery, usage accounting, and cleanup controls.
> - This pull request adds those managed backends as the third part of
the Runner parity stack.
> - The benefit is managed execution without weakening the default-off
Runner rollout gate.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: Runner, server orchestration, database profiles, CLI, and
adapter configuration UI.
**Problem or motivation**
The current Runner stack cannot select or execute the managed Claude
Agents API or AWS Bedrock AgentCore Harness backends. It also lacks
qualified profile storage and recovery checks for those remote
resources.
**Proposed solution**
Add qualified managed and remote profiles, API and CLI management, exact
provider selection, durable lifecycle handling, cumulative usage
accounting, bounded cleanup, and retention acknowledgement. Keep
`enableNativeRunner` default-off.
**Alternatives considered**
A direct copy of the old integration branch was rejected because its
provider contracts, model values, credential flow, and migration history
no longer match the current base. A single large parity pull request was
also rejected because stacked review keeps each subsystem bounded.
**Roadmap alignment**
This continues the existing Runner architecture and rollout work. It
does not introduce a separate execution system.
**Additional context**
This pull request is based on the merged #12691 and #12685 stack. It
also closes the delayed security-review findings reported on #12691 by
binding qualified ACPX and OpenCode launch artifacts to the bytes
actually executed. A GitHub search for managed agent, AgentCore, and
Claude managed work found no duplicate public issue or pull request.
## What Changed
- Add Claude Managed Agents and AWS AgentCore provider executors to
runnerd.
- Add qualified managed and remote profile storage, routes, OpenAPI
contracts, CLI commands, and migration 0237.
- Validate profile ownership, enabled state, exact qualified revision,
model, agent version, and secret binding before persistence and
recovery.
- Persist durable provider session and owned skill state for
restart-safe cleanup.
- Reconcile uncertain create responses and delete remote sessions before
owned skills.
- Track cumulative provider usage and enforce positive session spend
caps.
- Recover interrupted AgentCore usage at the next turn boundary by
charging the prior invocation ceiling exactly once; keep the session
gated until an explicit monotonic budget raise.
- Isolate AgentCore AWS configuration from host profiles and
credential-process/SSO configuration while preserving workload identity.
- Require OpenCode 1.18.17 and fixed build-owned provider-pack artifact
paths; remove the ambient executable override.
- Snapshot and content-verify ACPX and OpenCode commands, scripts, and
provider executables before launch. Linux executes sealed inherited
descriptors; macOS uses authenticated private snapshots with retry-safe
rematerialization at the spawn boundary.
- Persist canonical ACPX and OpenCode launch-profile digests, reject
drift across fresh recovery, and make recovery failures sticky.
- Close and journal unsafe ACPX active-turn recovery before any provider
bootstrap or reconnect.
- Add managed provider fields to the Runner configuration UI and
permission projection.
- Preserve the default-off `enableNativeRunner` experimental flag.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Focused managed server, database, CLI, Runner TypeScript, Rust,
Claude, AgentCore, ACPX, OpenCode, process-supervisor, and
durable-recovery tests passed.
- `cargo test -p paperclip-runner-core --lib --locked` (160 tests)
- `cargo check --workspace --all-targets --locked`
- Native Codex integration tests passed (60 tests); native provider
tests passed (7 tests); server native-runtime tests passed (87 tests).
- Verified-launch replacement, nested-spawn retry, exact-version,
profile-drift, sticky-failure, and no-bootstrap active-recovery tests
passed.
- `git diff --check`
- The PR changes 91 files. `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged. The Rust
workspace lockfile adds the approved `rustix` dependency used for safe
descriptor handling while `#![forbid(unsafe_code)]` remains enabled.
## Risks
- The provider APIs can change while they are in beta. Exact
qualification and fail-closed recovery checks limit drift.
- Remote cleanup can fail after a partial create. Durable ownership
inventories and retry-safe deletion preserve recovery state.
- Migration 0237 adds profile tables. The generated migration and
snapshot pass the repository migration checks.
- Managed execution can incur provider cost. Positive default spend caps
and explicit retention acknowledgement limit accidental use.
- An interrupted AgentCore invocation without final metadata is
conservatively charged to its active session ceiling. This can overstate
cost, but cannot undercount it; later work requires an explicit budget
increase.
- Linux qualified launches use sealed memory descriptors. macOS lacks
executable-descriptor APIs, so the runner uses owner-only private
snapshots and minimizes linked-path lifetime; hostile same-UID processes
remain outside the documented local-host trust boundary.
- The global Runner feature remains default-off.
> 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 tool use, code execution, and subagent 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 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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip Runner gives native runs a durable and governed execution
path.
> - The lower stack PR adds authenticated remote execution targets and
provider ingress.
> - The Rust daemon currently accepts only loopback plaintext WebSocket
connections.
> - Remote Codex needs authenticated WSS dialing and provider-ingress
listener mode.
> - This pull request adds the bounded Rust transport contract.
> - The benefit is a secure transport layer for the Codex remote
vertical slice.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12638.
Refs #12616.
Refs #12352.
**Subsystem affected**
Paperclip Runner Rust transport and remote runner networking.
**Problem or motivation**
The runner daemon cannot connect to a public control plane with TLS. It
also cannot accept a provider preview connection on the run-bound
ingress path.
**Proposed solution**
Add WSS with native trust roots and an optional private CA bundle. Add a
fixed authenticated listener mode for provider ingress. Advertise the
exact transport contract through build metadata.
**Alternatives considered**
Plaintext public WebSocket connections would weaken the transport
boundary. A general listener would expose more network surface than the
run-bound provider ingress requires.
**Roadmap alignment**
This work supports the Cloud and Sandbox agents milestone. It also
supports self-healing native runs.
## Stack
- Lower merged PR: #12638.
- This PR contains only its 13-file delta against `master`.
- Later stack PRs add the task workspace and administrator UI.
## What Changed
- Added WSS dialing with rustls and native certificate roots.
- Added an optional bounded private CA bundle that augments native
roots.
- Kept plaintext WebSocket dialing restricted to loopback addresses.
- Pinned resolved dial addresses for the process lifetime.
- Added a fixed `0.0.0.0:43127` listener with an exact run-bound path.
- Rejected listener queries, ambiguous paths, and WebSocket extensions.
- Kept frame and message size bounds.
- Added bounded reconnect grace and exponential jitter.
- Retried bootstrap failures only before authentication proof
transmission begins.
- Kept post-proof failures fail-closed and bounded the welcome exchange
at two seconds.
- Added runnerd build metadata for the versioned transport contract.
- Updated Rust dependencies and `Cargo.lock` only for TLS and
certificate handling.
- Did not add provider dispatch, Pi, AWS, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, migrations,
or workflows.
## Verification
- GitHub Actions will run Cargo formatting, Rust tests, repository
tests, typecheck, build, security, and policy gates.
- Rust tests cover URL validation, listener path validation, build
metadata, durable recovery, and the existing Codex provider path.
- Local tests were not run. The requested verification policy uses
GitHub Actions for this series.
- `git diff --check master...HEAD` passes.
- The delta contains 13 files.
## Risks
- TLS and listener changes affect the runner trust boundary.
- Public plaintext transport remains rejected.
- The listener uses one fixed port and one exact run-bound path.
- PRP authentication remains required after the WebSocket upgrade.
- The optional CA file uses the existing private-file checks and a 4 MiB
limit.
- This PR does not enable another provider or change direct adapters.
> 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 with GPT-5.6. The work used high-reasoning agent mode,
repository tools, GitHub tools, and parallel code-audit agents.
## 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 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
- [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.
> - Paperclip Runner gives native runs a durable and governed execution
path.
> - The current native path runs on the control-plane host.
> - Remote environments need an authenticated execution-target contract.
> - The contract must not change direct adapters or enable new runtimes
by default.
> - This pull request adds the remote execution substrate and Daytona
ingress.
> - The benefit is a bounded base for later remote runner transport
work.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12616.
Refs #12352.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting. This change touches runner transport, server
orchestration, plugin contracts, and shared settings.
**Problem or motivation**
Native execution cannot resolve an authenticated runner ingress through
a remote environment. The server also lacks one provider-neutral
contract for remote execution targets.
**Proposed solution**
Add a default-off runner preview ingress capability. Add
transport-neutral runner connectivity. Add remote execution target and
lifecycle handling. Add a Daytona ingress implementation with redacted
credentials.
**Alternatives considered**
A provider-specific server path would duplicate orchestration and
authorization. A public endpoint without an environment contract would
weaken the trust boundary.
**Roadmap alignment**
This work supports the Cloud and Sandbox agents milestone. It also
supports self-healing runs and governed tool access.
## What Changed
- Added execution-target traits for local, SSH, and sandbox
environments.
- Added plugin RPC contracts for runner ingress endpoints.
- Added authenticated Daytona preview ingress.
- Added transport-neutral PRP outbound connections.
- Added remote runner artifact verification and fail-closed provider
selection.
- Added bounded native session resume, cancellation, and lifecycle
recovery.
- Preserved Codex-only selection for fresh experimental runner starts.
- Preserved all direct adapter execution and finalization paths.
- Removed stale Pi provider-pack requirements that security review
rejected.
- Kept the rollout controls off by default.
- Did not change pnpm-lock.yaml, Cargo, database migrations, or GitHub
workflows.
## Verification
- GitHub Actions will run the repository test, typecheck, build,
security, and policy gates.
- Focused tests cover ingress validation, redaction, execution targets,
remote lifecycle, cancellation, resume, and legacy adapter selection.
- Local tests were not run. The requested verification policy uses
GitHub Actions for this series.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passes.
- The diff contains 52 files.
## Risks
- Remote execution crosses a trust boundary.
- The implementation validates target capabilities, artifact digests,
provider-pack pins, and connection metadata.
- The feature remains default-off.
- Fresh native selection remains Codex-only.
- Existing direct adapters remain on the legacy path.
- This PR does not yet make remote Codex runnable. The next PR adds the
Rust WSS and TLS transport.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6. The work used high-reasoning agent mode,
repository tools, GitHub tools, and parallel code-audit agents.
## 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 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
- [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.
> - Agent execution currently uses direct adapters inside the server
process.
> - The proposed Paperclip Runner adds a separate process and a new
protocol boundary.
> - This boundary needs clear trust, recovery, rollout, and
compatibility rules before code lands.
> - Large runner changes are difficult to review as one pull request.
> - This pull request defines the first small boundary for the runner
series.
> - The benefit is a stable design contract for later implementation
pull requests.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Issue type**
Missing documentation.
**Where is the issue?**
The repository does not have a concise architecture decision or
compatibility contract for Paperclip Runner.
**What's wrong?**
The available runner design material is too large for normal review. It
mixes architecture, implementation history, test evidence, and deferred
work. Reviewers need a short statement of the process boundary, trust
model, rollout behavior, and direct-adapter compatibility rules.
**Suggested fix**
Add one architecture decision record and one compatibility document.
Keep implementation details and campaign evidence out of this pull
request.
Related public work: Refs #11041, #11297, #11634, #11639, #11640, and
#11962. This pull request is the first small replacement in the new
review series for #11962.
## What Changed
- Added an architecture decision for the runner process, PRP v1
transport, semantic tools, durable recovery, and additive server
integration.
- Added a compatibility and rollout contract for the default-off
adapter, existing direct adapters, persisted native runs, and the task
page.
- Defined the initial package and provider limits. The first production
provider is Codex only.
- Defined acceptance checks for later implementation pull requests.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` passed with Node 24.19.0 and pnpm
9.15.4.
- `pnpm check:node-version` passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm build` passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed.
- The pull request changes 2 files.
- `pnpm test:run` completed with 4,686 passing tests and 30 failures in
unchanged master paths. The failures reproduce macOS path aliases,
invalid generated port values, and local listener behavior. This
documentation-only change does not touch those paths. Linux CI must pass
before this pull request is ready.
- All applicable GitHub Actions and security scans passed. The Storybook
visual job skipped because this documentation-only change does not match
its paths.
- Greptile completed at 5/5 with no actionable comments.
## Risks
Low implementation risk. This pull request changes documentation only. A
later implementation can still diverge from the contract. Each later
pull request must prove its behavior against these compatibility rules.
I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This design supports the governed tool and
control-plane direction. It does not add an overlapping user feature.
## 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
- [ ] 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
Dotta