## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The runner maps provider questions to one versioned Paperclip
contract.
> - Codex and ACPX now perform that mapping through separate adapters.
> - Separate adapter tests do not prove that both paths preserve the
same user-visible form.
> - Fixture validation must also match production behavior for optional
answers and unsupported patterns.
> - This pull request adds shared fixtures, validation, and
cross-adapter conformance checks.
> - The benefit is a reusable question contract for later providers
without enabling a new runtime.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12408
This pull request builds on the Codex ACPX question bridge merged in
#12408. It adds fixture and generator checks for the existing Codex and
ACPX question adapters. It does not add another provider or production
execution path.
## What Changed
- Add a canonical ACPX form fixture and native response. Mark the
equivalent Codex fixture field as required.
- Add shared validation for question IDs, option IDs, answer modes,
required answers, text bounds, numeric bounds, and response shapes.
- Evaluate fixture-only regular expressions in a bounded child process.
Reject patterns that cannot finish safely.
- Validate ACPX fixtures against a manifest-side mirror of the
production form projection. Reject free-text ACPX patterns, but ignore
patterns on enumerated option fields.
- Accept explicit empty optional answers and omit them from the
projected ACPX response, which matches the production parser.
- Validate every question fixture during manifest generation and
regenerate the checked-in manifest.
- Add cross-adapter tests that compare user-visible presentation while
preserving provider-owned IDs and provider-specific response conversion.
- Add negative regressions for malformed forms, invalid responses,
unsafe patterns, special property names, and projection drift.
## Verification
- Replay base: `4fe3189f0256873a359d2d53c209076919fd1c3b` (`master`
after #12408 merged).
- Exact replay head: `0532e7dfbb5a246033ffeef55a0c0013fdab07f1`.
- Stable patch ID for the intended seven-file delta:
`28154d86b2c37e0e8d442419e26703584852f67e`.
- The intended pull request delta contains exactly these seven files:
- `packages/paperclip-runner/protocol/fixtures/questions/acpx.json`
- `packages/paperclip-runner/protocol/fixtures/questions/codex.json`
- `packages/paperclip-runner/protocol/manifest.json`
- `packages/paperclip-runner/scripts/generate-protocol-manifest.mjs`
- `packages/paperclip-runner/scripts/protocol-contract.mjs`
-
`packages/paperclip-runner/src/contracts/question-adapter-conformance.test.ts`
- `packages/paperclip-runner/test/protocol-contract.test.mjs`
- The intended combined delta is 1,211 additions and 20 deletions.
- This change does not add a dependency, lockfile update, migration,
workflow, server route, UI change, documentation file, or production
runtime change.
- GitHub Actions run `33352004952` passed the complete matrix on retry
at the unchanged exact head, including protocol/package verification,
build, typecheck/release-registry, general and serialized server suites,
canary, and all e2e shards.
- Superagent, Socket, Snyk, contributor-trust, policy, and PR-review
checks pass on the exact replay head.
- Greptile reviewed the exact replay head at 5/5 with no blocking
finding and zero unresolved review threads.
- No local test result is claimed. GitHub Actions is the authoritative
verification environment for the replayed revision.
## Risks
This change has low runtime risk because it changes fixtures, generator
validation, generated metadata, and tests only. Fixture pattern checks
run in a child process with a one-second timeout and a bounded output
buffer. The ACPX gate intentionally rejects free-text patterns because
the production adapter has no bounded expression engine. It
intentionally permits an explicit empty optional answer because
production omits that answer from the native response. A validation
mismatch can block manifest generation, but it cannot change server
selection, direct adapters, or task-page behavior.
> 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, extended reasoning, repository 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 (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
- [ ] 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
> - Semantic tools cross a trust boundary between a provider and the
control plane
> - Durable runs need exact input, result, denial, duplicate, and
reconciliation receipts
> - Replay must reject unsupported required versions and mismatched
receipt pairs
> - This pull request adds the receipt builders and deterministic replay
fixtures
> - It keeps newer sequence and gap safety limits from the current stack
> - The benefit is auditable semantic activity before more providers use
it
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
packages/paperclip-runner
**Problem or motivation**
Semantic tool calls have basic authorization records, but durable replay
does not yet cover reconciled calls, denial redaction, duplicate
receipts, governance targets, or artifact references.
**Proposed solution**
Add bounded semantic receipt builders, a reconciled phase, strict pair
binding, fail-closed version checks, and generated replay oracles for
the important lifecycle cases.
**Alternatives considered**
The runner could store provider-native tool payloads. That would weaken
protocol portability and make redaction and retry behavior
provider-specific.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It
does not enable a production adapter.
## What Changed
- Add semantic input and result receipt builders.
- Add optional reconciliation receipts for pending calls.
- Reject unsupported semantic receipt versions.
- Validate receipt correlation, operation, idempotency, and digest
bindings.
- Add deterministic replay fixtures and generated golden outputs.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Replay golden and protocol manifest checks pass.
- The branch changes 27 files relative to its declared base.
## Risks
The main risk is accepting a receipt that belongs to another call or
replaying a duplicate as a new mutation. Binding checks compare
correlation, operation, idempotency, and content digest fields. Fixtures
cover denials, duplicates, governance chains, optional fields,
artifacts, and unsupported versions.
> 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
> - The runner already persists PRP events, but provider-native activity
needs one bounded, provider-neutral vocabulary before additional
providers can be added safely.
> - The protocol catalog must describe capabilities without enabling or
authorizing a provider.
> - Provider normalization must not require an ACPX runtime dependency
merely to compile the shared event layer.
> - This pull request adds the event contract and pure normalizers only;
provider transports and production selection remain unchanged.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This is the first follow-up stacked on #12321. Codex, OpenCode, and ACP
runtimes expose different activity shapes. Without canonical
normalization, downstream task threads and traces would need
provider-specific branching and could retain unbounded or unsafe
payloads.
## What Changed
- Expand the PRP provider descriptor and canonical activity event
families.
- Add bounded Codex, OpenCode, and ACP event normalizers for plans,
tools, research, delegation, artifacts, review, safety, waits, and
notices.
- Preserve strict schema validation and regenerate the checked-in schema
bundle and manifest.
- Use a structural ACP event input so the provider-neutral layer does
not introduce or authorize an ACPX runtime dependency.
- Export the provider-event contract from the existing package root.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` — 11
files and 88 tests passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `git diff --check`
- The local full repository runner reached unrelated macOS
workspace-path fixture failures; the affected runner suites pass and the
repository CI shards are the handoff authority.
- Diff against the declared base: 8 files.
## Compatibility Boundary
- No provider transport, adapter, server route, feature flag, or runtime
selection changes.
- Catalog presence does not authorize discovery or execution.
- Existing Codex execution continues through its current path.
- No dependency, migration, workflow, or lockfile change.
## Risks
The main risk is accepting malformed or unbounded provider payloads.
Schema validation remains fail-closed, text/output fields are bounded
and redacted, unsafe paths and URLs are discarded, and representative
variants for every declared event family are covered by tests.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 family. The client does not expose the exact
deployment ID or context window. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the relevant template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal task
identifier
- [x] I have run the affected local tests and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated the compatibility notes for this change
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open actionable comments
- [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 needs a language-neutral contract between the
server and the runner process.
> - A shared contract must exist before TypeScript, Rust, transport, or
provider implementations can depend on it.
> - Required protocol versions must fail closed, while safe optional
fields must remain compatible.
> - The contract also needs deterministic fixtures and a drift gate for
later cross-language work.
> - This pull request adds that contract without adding runtime
behavior.
> - The benefit is a small, reviewable source of truth for the next
implementation pull requests.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting. This pull request adds a private package contract for
later server, TypeScript, and Rust work.
**Problem or motivation**
Paperclip Runner does not have a small language-neutral protocol
boundary on `master`. A runtime implementation without this boundary can
drift between languages, accept unsupported required versions, or
silently change canonical fixtures.
**Proposed solution**
Add PRP v1 JSON Schemas, accepted and rejected fixtures, a Codex
structured-question fixture, and a generated SHA-256 manifest. Run
compatibility and manifest checks during the package build. Keep the
package private and export nothing in this pull request.
**Alternatives considered**
The combined runner branch contains schemas together with providers,
SDKs, labs, and server behavior. That change is too large for normal
review. Generating TypeScript validators in this pull request would also
cross into the next review unit.
**Roadmap alignment**
This contract supports the governed tool and control-plane direction in
`ROADMAP.md`. It does not enable a new production adapter or endpoint.
**Additional context**
Refs #12084 and #11962. This pull request was reviewed as a stack on
#12084, then rebased and retargeted to `master` after #12084 merged. The
current delta is 38 files.
## What Changed
- Added 20 PRP v1 JSON Schemas with stable identifiers and resolved
references, including explicit cross-language conformance input and
output schemas.
- Added canonical replay, cross-language, and Codex question fixtures.
- Added accepted cases for additive optional fields and a rejected case
for an unsupported required protocol version.
- Added a deterministic manifest with SHA-256 digests for every schema
and fixture.
- Added package-local schema-instance, schema-reference, compatibility,
question-ID, conformance-pair, and drift checks.
- Added a private workspace package with no public exports and no
production runtime behavior.
- Added the package manifest to the Docker dependency-stage inventory
required for every workspace package. This does not copy or build runner
runtime code into the production image.
- Kept the provider descriptor and question fixture Codex-only. No
deferred provider package or dependency is present.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` passed with Node 24.19.0 and pnpm
9.15.4. No lockfile change is committed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:protocol` passed
with 8 tests.
- The committed AJV 2020-12 gate accepted every canonical v1 replay,
question, and cross-language conformance fixture. It rejected the
required v2 fixture, a replay fixture with a missing required command
ID, and conformance output with a missing session ID.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm build` passed and ran the protocol manifest drift check.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` passed.
- `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs` passed.
- `git diff --check` passed.
- The delta against its declared base is 38 files.
- `pnpm test:run` completed with 4,687 passing tests, 19 skipped tests,
and 29 failures across 9 unchanged server files. The failures reproduce
macOS path aliases, local listener probes, workspace-runtime
assumptions, and one connection-retry timeout. No changed-file test
failed. Linux CI must pass before this pull request is ready.
- `pnpm check:tokens` reports existing personal-name references outside
this pull request. A scoped scan of `packages/paperclip-runner` found no
secret-like values, internal references, or deferred-provider names.
- PR #12084 was squash-merged, and this branch was rebased onto that
merge and retargeted to `master`. The first master-base policy run
correctly caught the missing Docker dependency-stage manifest copy;
commit `4fa1ea7c` fixes that gate, and the complete Linux matrix is
green.
- Serialized server shard 1 initially hit an unchanged heartbeat
test-harness timeout and a later assertion in the same file. Its
isolated rerun passed in 3m57s. All other shards passed on their first
attempt.
- Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no blocking failure.
Both earlier actionable validation threads are resolved, and no review
thread remains open.
## Risks
Low production risk. The package is private and has no exports, server
adapter, endpoint, or process. AJV is a package-only development
dependency that the server workspace already uses. The main risk is
contract churn before the TypeScript and Rust consumers land. The
generated manifest and compatibility fixtures make that churn explicit.
I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This change defines a contract for planned
control-plane work and does not add overlapping product behavior.
## 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