## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their connections.
> - Connection checks must use the configured transport.
> - The tool service treated every remaining transport as local stdio.
> - Anthropic's old REST method therefore failed with a templateId
error. A REST connection with a valid stdio template could incorrectly
pass.
> - Anthropic now has a supported AI-account flow. This pull request
removes its obsolete REST setup option and limits stdio checks to stdio
connections.
> - Users can connect an AI account, and existing unsupported
connections receive an accurate error.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related: #13248 added the supported AI-account flow. Searches for
related REST health and templateId bugs found no duplicate fix.
**What happened?**
The Anthropic REST API-key connection showed `Local stdio MCP
connections must use an approved templateId`. Health checks and catalog
discovery both fell through to the local stdio path. A REST connection
with an approved template could report success and expose the template's
catalog without a REST integration.
**Expected behavior**
Only local stdio connections use command templates. Unsupported
transports return an accurate HTTP 422 error. New Anthropic accounts use
the supported runtime authentication flow.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Check out the test-only commit `924e6e85a` in a separate worktree and
install dependencies.
2. Run `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t 'unsupported
REST|obsolete Anthropic'`.
3. The tests exercise saved Anthropic REST configuration and an
unsupported REST connection containing an approved stdio template. They
cover health checks and catalog discovery separately.
4. Run the same tests on the fix commit. They pass. The full affected
files also pass.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced against master `6cef9743c`.
**Deployment mode**
Server transport handling. Reproduced with an isolated embedded
PostgreSQL test database. No provider account or live credentials are
required.
## What Changed
- Restrict stdio health checks and tool discovery to `local_stdio`.
- Return and audit `tool_connection_transport_unsupported` with HTTP 422
for unsupported tool transports.
- Remove Anthropic's obsolete REST method from the generated catalog and
its durable ingestion source. Keep its subscription and API-key AI
methods.
- Cover the reported error, false-success case, rejected obsolete setup,
connection removal, and the UI's AI-account submission path.
- Replace impossible reconnect forms for removed methods with supported
setup, while preserving connection removal.
- Preserve AI-versus-tool intent isolation for legacy requests and
reject new unsupported Anthropic tool requests.
- Document recovery for existing unsupported connections.
## Verification
- Clean-worktree red/green: the same command failed all six regression
cases at `924e6e85a` and passed all six at `4d3de9de0`. The failing run
includes the reported templateId error.
- Green: all 555 tests across the six affected test files passed.
- Recovery UI red/green: three added cases failed before the recovery
fix and passed afterward; all 200 tests across setup, detail, and
advanced controls passed.
- After the recovery UI update, UI typecheck/build and token gates
passed again.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed.
- Catalog regeneration — passed with the documented
`PAPERCLIP_CONTENT_TEMPLATES` override for the local capture corpus.
- Full CI on `69fb31fd4` — passed all general and serialized test
shards, browser shards, typecheck, build, runner verification, and
canary dry run:
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34726975425.
- The local serial `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the fixture
correction superseded that run; full-suite verification above comes from
CI. All 555 affected tests passed locally, including all 17
connection-intent tests after the correction.
- Greptile — 5/5, successful check on final commit `69fb31fd4`, no
unresolved findings.
- No live Anthropic validation was performed. The UI regression uses a
fake key and a mocked AI-account response.
## Risks
Existing obsolete REST connections remain in needs-attention state.
Users must add an account through the supported flow and remove the old
connection. Credentials and grants are not transferred automatically.
Removal remains covered. The specialized AgentMail and Composio paths
keep their existing behavior. There are no schema or permission changes.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact serving model ID and
context-window capacity are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning,
code editing, shell tools, and test 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
- [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.
> - Agent runs need credentials for a specific provider and sign-in
method.
> - Connections already owns accounts, grants, and access permissions.
> - AI authentication should use those same boundaries.
> - This pull request adds the storage, API, adoption, and runtime
foundation.
> - Legacy agents keep their authentication until they explicitly adopt
a managed connection.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
AI credentials are configured separately from Connections. Agents cannot
consistently reuse a responsible user's account or a permitted shared
account.
**Proposed solution**
Manage AI accounts with the existing Connections grants and permissions.
Keep model and harness selection independent from credential selection.
Preserve legacy authentication until validated adoption.
**Alternatives considered**
A separate credential registry would duplicate ownership and access
policy. Automatic fallback would risk using the wrong account.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the shipped Apps, multi-user, secrets, and agent-runtime
capabilities. The maintainer requested the feature and reviewed the UI.
Related groundwork: #11899 (connection permissions), #10910 (connection
wizard), #11692 (Claude subscription profiles), and #11854 (Codex
account rotation).
## What Changed
- Add AI-purpose/runtime-auth contracts and an additive, idempotent
migration.
- Add Claude, OpenAI, OpenRouter, and Grok provider capabilities and
catalog entries.
- Store credentials on grants. Resolve responsible-user defaults or
explicit permitted grants.
- Isolate managed credentials and provider sessions across accounts.
Block missing credentials without ambient fallback.
- Keep imported legacy secrets unchanged during reconnect. Use
independent local Codex/Grok sign-in attempts for rotating credentials.
- Add authorization, migration, concurrent refresh, retry, cancellation,
and legacy-compatibility tests.
This is part 1 of a two-PR stack. The app UI follows in #13248. Merge
the foundation first.
## Verification
- Updated against master `04e364236`, preserving upstream provider login
and connector workflows.
- Full workspace typecheck, production build, Storybook build, and token
gates passed on the integrated branch. Final local-login changes passed
59 focused tests; new-agent and inbox regression suites passed 63 tests.
- Browser checks verified automatic local Claude account detection,
resumable Codex login commands, retry, focus restoration, and
desktop/phone layouts. Commands create their isolated directory before
invoking the CLI.
- All current-head CI checks passed on `2a996560a`, including all
server/workspace tests, browser shards, runner verification, typecheck,
build, and canary dry run. Greptile reviewed that commit at 5/5 with no
unresolved threads. Earlier local full-suite attempts hit the Mac
PostgreSQL shared-memory limit; the complete suites passed in CI.
- Renumbered the additive AI migration to `0276` after upstream
migrations and regenerated its snapshot. Existing legacy agents retain
their configuration.
- Added local login status checks, owner-scoped retry, managed OpenCode
remote homes, credential-aware model discovery, and task
connection-repair delivery.
## Risks
- Managed credential failures intentionally block execution. They do not
restore legacy fallback.
- Preview-era copied Codex/Grok subscriptions require independent
reconnect.
- The integrated branch has live provider acceptance coverage. This
update verifies local Claude detection and Codex API-key task repair; it
does not add a new subscription authorization/refresh or Daytona stress
pass.
- Runtime-auth connections must stay excluded from tool and channel
handling.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, and browser testing. The exact runtime model 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.
> - Channels connect external conversations to company tasks and agent
execution.
> - Slack, Discord, and AgentMail already provide durable delivery and
access controls.
> - People also need to reach an agent from Apple Messages and send
photos.
> - Photon provides shared Pro DMs, dedicated numbers, and authenticated
event recovery.
> - This pull request connects Photon to the existing channel services.
> - People can message an agent while Paperclip retains task ownership
and approval authority.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: channel services, shared contracts, database constraints,
Apps, and agent Channels UI.
**Problem or motivation**
Paperclip has no iMessage channel. A person cannot use Apple Messages to
start a task, send a photo, or answer an agent's pending question.
**Proposed solution**
Add experimental **iMessage Photon** with Pro-compatible shared DMs or a
dedicated Photon Cloud number per agent channel. Reuse channel
admission, identity links, task generations, publication, and
interaction continuation. Keep groups disabled for shared allocation.
Dedicated lines support groups that an operator explicitly enables.
Require a fresh linked message and a published agent response before
setup completes.
**Alternatives considered**
Shared allocation has no owned phone number, so it reserves one project
and allows DMs only. Dedicated allocation reserves one stable number.
Local Mac access needs a separate deployment model. The upstream Photon
Chat SDK adapter does not persist the poll mappings and send receipts
required here. This change uses the lower-level SDK without adding
another agent runtime.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends Connected Apps and agent communication through the existing
channel subsystem. It does not add a parallel tool connection or agent
loop. GitHub searches for Photon and iMessage found no matching provider
implementation.
**Additional context**
This ships behind the existing experimental channel gate. Dedicated-line
release qualification remains incomplete. Real Photon Pro DMs passed
task/reply, native poll, text answers, confirmation rejection, media,
restart, pause, reconnect, revocation, and removal tests. An
operator-supplied iPhone camera HEIC also passed the full round trip.
Dedicated groups remain unqualified. See [the verification
record](doc/connections/IMESSAGE-PHOTON-VERIFICATION.md) and [the
implementation plan](doc/plans/2026-09-11-imessage-photon.md).
## What Changed
- Add the provider catalog entry, shared setup contracts, and a forward
migration. A global partial index reserves the dedicated number or
shared project until its endpoint is archived.
- Add Cloud project inspection, vaulted project credentials,
selected-line token renewal, and a leased receiver. Persist checkpoint
updates under the receiver lease. Shared project replay accepts sparse
increasing sequences only after a complete recovery barrier.
- Connect DMs and enabled groups to existing task generations, sender
authorization, ordered delivery, and publication services. Keep each
iMessage conversation on its task after completion; only explicit `/new`
or `/close` releases the binding. Publish committed inbound comments
live and label their human bubbles “Sent from iMessage” in both
task-chat renderers.
- Persist immutable text/file send identities, upload receipts, poll
IDs, option IDs, per-person drafts, and canonical interaction
continuation proofs.
- Add source-bound file recovery, bounded HEIC/HEIF conversion, JPEG
previews, and related Live Photo companion video retention.
- Add the three-step setup flow and channel management surfaces with
official branding. Preserve the experimental gate and existing
pause/disconnect behavior.
- Add interactive production-component Storybooks for setup, access,
recovery, and ongoing conversations. Add provider, integration, catalog,
and browser regression coverage. Document setup, recovery, supported
boundaries, and qualification gaps.
## Verification
- Live Photon Pro, SDK 2.1.0: linked iPhone messages create a task and
receive native Codex replies in Apple Messages. Unlinked senders cannot
start work.
- Three real follow-ups each reopened the same completed task. Incoming
bubbles appeared on its open page without reload and showed “Sent from
iMessage.” The third follow-up ran after restarting the server on
`4d7222110`; the agent correctly repeated its previous reply from before
the restart.
- Native polls after restart, sequential text drafts, required-field
correction, explicit submission, approval rejection with a required
reason, and native continuation passed against Photon.
- PNG, text documents, synthetic HEIC, and a real iPhone camera HEIC
passed in both directions. The camera photo produced a 3024×4032 JPEG
preview. The native agent described it and returned the received HEIC
byte-for-byte.
- Pause/resume, reconnect, identity revocation, removal, `/status`,
`/new`, `/close`, and stale answers after close passed live. Messages
suppressed by pause did not become work on resume. Removal stopped
intake and removed credential bindings.
- All 304 focused tests passed on `4d7222110`. These cover Photon
unit/integration behavior, both task-chat renderers, live comment
hydration, completed-task continuity after restart, enabled groups,
duplicate delivery, and explicit reset/close. The selected Teams
completion-boundary regression also passed. Full workspace
typecheck/build and token gates passed for the conversation fix; the
final UI changes passed their affected typecheck/build and tests.
- All 26 new Photon Storybook Playwright cases passed in light and dark
themes, including the complete shared-DM setup journey and 390px mobile
follow-ups. UI typecheck and the Storybook build passed. These stories
use simulated Photon responses and do not replace the live evidence
above.
- The full chat-adapters browser suite previously passed all 39 cases.
Migration checks passed, and migration 0275 applied to the isolated live
instance with the earlier Photon migration already applied.
- The local full Vitest run was previously interrupted by the host's
embedded-Postgres shared-memory limit; it is not a full-suite pass. All
30 applicable CI checks passed on preceding head `7a5419cac`, with two
skipped checks and Greptile 5/5. Head `24f8e1aae` adds an explicit
required-story discovery guard to the 26 passing Storybook cases.
Greptile rates this final head 5/5 with no unresolved review threads.
All 30 applicable CI checks passed, with two optional checks skipped.
- A repeated live send key suppressed the duplicate but returned gRPC 6
/ SDK `internalError` without an original receipt. Paperclip keeps
unknown delivery unresolved. This provider behavior is covered by a
regression test.
- See [the verification
record](doc/connections/IMESSAGE-PHOTON-VERIFICATION.md) for package
versions, redacted live evidence, deterministic coverage, and remaining
qualification gaps.
## Risks
- Dedicated group qualification remains unrun; groups are disabled for
the approved Pro scope. Real iPhone camera HEIC passed transport,
preview generation, agent inspection, and return. Keep the channel
experimental; the dedicated-line release matrix remains incomplete.
- Shared recovery and attachment aliases were verified against the live
gateway. Duplicate writes currently return an error without the original
receipt; unresolved sends require operator resolution. The
implementation fails visibly on invalid replay ordering, a reset cursor,
or changed identity.
- The HEIF converter passed on macOS arm64 and in Linux CI. Windows HEIF
binaries have not been executed in this work. Linux musl has no packaged
converter. Unsupported conversion retains the original and reports the
missing preview.
- The migration adds a global reservation across companies for Photon
numbers and shared projects. Paused and revoked endpoints keep that
reservation until removal.
- Integration touches shared channel services. Existing provider browser
coverage passes; broad repository verification is recorded above.
- `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded under repository policy.
The repository bot owns lockfile updates. The additional Superagent
supply-chain scan is neutral/inconclusive because these new dependencies
are not yet in the committed lockfile. Its security scan passed; all
required CI checks pass.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository inspection, code
execution, browser testing, and tool use. The exact served model
identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. No
sub-agents were used.
## 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.
> - Paperclip Cloud needs a verified image for each merged source
commit.
> - Fresh builders restore compiled native dependencies from registry
caches.
> - The current workflow imports up to eleven historical cache manifests
at once.
> - Live builds missed native layers that a fresh builder reused from
one manifest.
> - This PR selects the nearest available cache and tests reuse across
fresh builders.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13329 and #13330. A search of open cache PRs found no duplicate of
this change.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Remote Docker cache reuse on fresh Cloud image builders.
**Current behavior**
[Cloud run
34714483272](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34714483272/job/103609096836)
imported the previous cache manifest successfully but rebuilt
`cargo-chef` and Rust dependencies. The dependency compile took 3m43s.
The preceding image build had already exported those layers.
A controlled [fresh-builder
diagnostic](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34715336530)
used the same source and registry cache. The single-manifest job reused
both layers immediately. The multiple-manifest job rebuilt them and
failed the cache assertion. Both jobs used GitHub-hosted runners with
read-only access.
**Proposed behavior**
Inspect cache manifests in first-parent order and import only the
nearest available one. Keep full-SHA cache exports, the ten-commit
search bound, and the legacy fallback. If caches cannot be read, permit
a cold build.
**Reason and benefit**
Avoid the observed cache misses without changing image contents or
builder sizes. Expected savings include about four minutes of native
tool/dependency compilation when those inputs are unchanged. The final
merge-to-deployable gain still needs a post-merge measurement.
**Breaking changes**
No image, artifact, deployment, or runner-routing contract changes.
## What Changed
- Select one available ancestor cache after Docker login and Buildx
setup.
- Preserve separate writable cache tags for each full source SHA.
- Test cache ordering, missing caches, registry errors, and workflow
integration.
- Add the selector tests to the existing release-registry suite.
- Export a local test cache, remove the first builder, and verify a
source rebuild on a fresh builder.
- Document cache selection and the stronger Docker check.
## Verification
- Passed 456 focused workflow, routing, readiness, preview-artifact, and
cache-selector tests.
- Passed shell syntax, ShellCheck for the changed probe, actionlint
workflow validation, and `git diff --check`. actionlint's shell checks
were disabled for the workflow validation because unchanged
migration-label commands trigger existing SC2012 notes.
- The fresh-builder registry diagnostic proves the single-cache
behavior. The [permanent two-builder probe
passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34715771048/job/103612624090),
including a changed real binary and dependency-declaration invalidation.
- Passed all 35 latest-head checks (green or intentionally skipped),
including full typecheck, test, build, and browser suites in [PR CI run
34715771217](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34715771217).
- The real selector CLI inspected registry metadata and chose the
nearest available ancestor cache.
- Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 with no open findings. The PR title was
corrected to meet the source-change naming rule; the review check passed
after that correction.
- Local full-suite runs and Docker builds are unavailable because the
local Docker daemon is unresponsive after disk exhaustion. CI provides
the Linux verification.
## Risks
- Missing or unreadable caches cause a slower cold build. The selector
logs that condition and preserves image publication.
- Inspecting several missing ancestors adds lookup time. Each lookup has
a ten-second timeout and the search is bounded.
- The Docker test now exports a local cache. It removes the first
builder before starting the second to release disk space, then cleans up
its builders and files.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code
execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed
by this environment.
## 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.
> - Paperclip Cloud deploys images that contain the native Rust Runner.
> - The image already builds that Runner before copying ordinary app
source.
> - A Rust source change still invalidates its entire compiled
dependency layer.
> - Compiled dependencies can survive source changes when their recipe
is unchanged.
> - This PR adds a separate locked dependency build before compiling the
real workspace.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13195. A search of related Docker and Cargo cache PRs found no
duplicate dependency-recipe change.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Docker image build time after Rust source or embedded protocol changes.
**Current behavior**
The `runner-build` stage compiles dependencies and workspace code in one
layer. In Cloud readiness run 34698143548, that stage took about 3m48s
when its cache was unavailable.
**Proposed behavior**
Generate a recipe with pinned cargo-chef 0.1.73. Build locked release
dependencies in `runner-deps`, then copy and compile real Rust source
and embedded protocol inputs in `runner-build`. Source edits can reuse
the dependency layer from the existing registry cache.
**Reason and benefit**
Reduce dependency recompilation during source changes and merge bursts.
Expected savings are roughly 2–4 minutes when the old native layer would
miss but dependency layers are available. Full cold builds also pay for
the recipe tool installation. Ordinary app-only cache hits gain little
from this change.
**Breaking changes**
None to the shipped application or image tags. The recipe tool and
compiled dependencies remain in build stages.
## What Changed
- Install a pinned recipe generator with its locked dependencies and the
existing package-owned compiler.
- Add recipe planning and compiled dependency stages. Use the same
release profile, package, binary, and lockfile enforcement as the real
native build.
- Remove generated source stubs before copying actual source. Preserve
protocol inputs, timestamp normalization, binary staging, and
application checks.
- Add Docker cache wiring regressions and update the Docker cache
documentation.
- Run a two-build probe in Docker Runner check. It requires dependency
reuse, changed real binary metadata after a source edit, and a changed
recipe after a dependency declaration edit. It uses a disposable
tracked-source context and exports only small metadata files.
## Verification
- Passed all five Docker build-stamp and dependency-cache tests with
`pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/docker-build-stamp.test.ts`.
- Passed the local ARM64 `docker buildx build --target runner-build
--progress plain`. Local Docker then hit storage errors during a runtime
probe; cache invalidation verification continues on GitHub-hosted Linux.
- Passed `bash -n scripts/check-docker-runner-cache.sh`, `actionlint`,
and `git diff --check`.
- Passed a [Linux AMD64 cache
probe](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34711042199)
against the PR source: dependencies compiled in 3m49s for the baseline
and were `CACHED` after a source edit; real source compilation took
about 37 seconds. Binary metadata changed and dependency declaration
changes altered the recipe. The permanent probe is also running in
latest-head Docker Runner check.
- Passed latest-head [Docker Runner
check](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34711145160),
including the permanent source/dependency invalidation probe.
- Passed full [PR
verification](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34711145352/attempts/2):
typecheck, all grouped tests, native verification, build, release dry
run, and browser checks. One unrelated signoff-policy browser test
failed waiting for a heartbeat run on attempt 1; only that failed shard
and dependent checks were retried, and passed.
- Latest-head Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Full local
tests/build were limited by local disk exhaustion; Linux CI completed
those checks.
## Risks
- The two-build CI probe has a 20-minute job limit to cover the cold
build and source rebuild. It adds no AWS routing.
- A fully cold build must install cargo-chef and populate the dependency
layer. Both become reusable registry layers; no Actions cache is added.
- The recipe and final build must keep the same compiler, build profile,
package, binary, and directory layout. A source-change rebuild probe
checks real cache reuse and binary invalidation.
- Dependency or compiler changes still require rebuilding dependencies.
Existing image verification and full-SHA publication gates remain
unchanged.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code
execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed
by this environment.
## 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.
> - Cloud deployments wait for verified source commits.
> - Verification splits serialized server tests across independent
runners.
> - The shard duration estimates came from August and no longer match
current tests.
> - Stale estimates put much more work on one runner than the others.
> - This PR refreshes the estimates from a complete successful run to
balance the existing runners.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The time spent waiting for the slowest serialized server-test shard in
PR and release verification.
**Current behavior**
In [Cloud readiness run
34705914878](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34705914878),
the five serialized shards spent 479, 371, 322, 390, and 365 seconds
running tests. The recovery suite had a 55-second estimate but now takes
about 156 seconds including process overhead.
**Proposed behavior**
Use fresh per-suite measurements with the existing deterministic
duration balancer. Applying the same measured costs to the new
assignment gives 385, 385, 386, 385, and 385 seconds. This predicts
about 93 seconds less waiting for the slowest shard, before runner/setup
overhead. Live CI will confirm the result.
**Reason and benefit**
Use the existing runners more evenly. No extra runner, test parallelism,
cache, timeout, or routing change is needed.
**Breaking changes**
Suite-to-shard assignments change. The full suite set, assertions, and
per-suite process isolation stay the same.
**Additional context**
Searched related CI and shard PRs. This updates the existing duration
manifest, without duplicating a pending sharding implementation.
## What Changed
- Refresh all 145 serialized suite weights from the same successful
release verification run.
- Record source job IDs and the measurement method in the manifest.
Durations include process startup, imports, collection, tests, and
shutdown.
## Verification
- Passed all 30 shard and release-workflow tests: `node --test
scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs
scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`.
- Confirmed every measured suite appears exactly once across all five
source logs.
- Compared old and new assignments using the same measured weights. The
maximum fell from 478862ms to 385551ms.
- In [PR CI run
34710696242](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34710696242),
all five serialized jobs passed in 7m05s–7m27s including setup. The
measured assignment is now balanced in a live run.
- The same run passed full typecheck, all grouped tests, native
verification, build, release dry run, and browser checks. Local
full-suite verification on this base was limited by disk exhaustion;
local typecheck and targeted shard tests passed.
- Latest-head Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings. Every current-head
CI check must be green or intentionally skipped before merge.
## Risks
- Individual durations vary with load and future test changes. These
estimates affect assignment only; missing or renamed suites receive the
existing median weight.
- Both PR and release verification read this manifest, so both receive
the new assignments. Each suite still runs in its own serialized Vitest
process.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code
execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed
by this environment.
## 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.
> - Paperclip Cloud deploys verified images from merged source commits.
> - Cloud readiness waits for every release verification check.
> - Runner verification currently runs long TypeScript tests before Rust
checks.
> - These checks can run on independent runners with their own build
directories.
> - This PR runs them in parallel while preserving all checks and the
shared dependency cache.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13194. Related prior work: #13142 and #13259. A search found no
duplicate parallel release-check change.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Time from merge to Cloud source verification and deployment readiness.
**Current behavior**
Recent successful runs take roughly 13 minutes from merge to deployable.
In run 34705914878, Runner verification took 11m23s. Protocol tests
finished before Rust tests and API authority checks started.
**Proposed behavior**
Run protocol and Rust verification in two matrix jobs. Cloud readiness
still requires both jobs to pass.
**Reason and benefit**
Remove the serial dependency between independent checks. Expected
improvement is about 2–3 minutes on a typical cached run, until the
image build or server tests become the longest job. This is an estimate;
post-merge timing will confirm it.
**Breaking changes**
Individual release Runner job names gain a lane suffix. Cloud source and
readiness marker names stay the same. PR runner routing is unchanged.
## What Changed
- Split release Runner checks into protocol and Rust lanes. Keep every
constituent of `check:all` exactly once.
- Restore the existing Rust dependency cache in both lanes. Allow only
the Rust lane to save it after warming both build profiles.
- Add coverage and cache authorization regressions. Document the
parallel verification and single cache writer.
## Verification
- Passed 477 workflow and source-verification tests with `node --test
.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs
scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs
scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`.
- Passed `actionlint`, `git diff --check`, and the private AWS routing
regression suite.
- Passed local `pnpm -r typecheck` and the standalone `check:runner &&
check:api-authority` lane, including all 1,671 API tests before the
protocol lane had built TypeScript output.
- The broad local protocol run under Node 25 had four failures. The two
affected files passed under CI's Node 24.19.0: 67 passed, 6 platform
skips.
- Local `pnpm test:run` aborted when disk space ran out; local `pnpm
build` could not run afterward. These are local verification limits.
[Linux CI run
34710421424](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34710421424)
passed full typecheck, all grouped tests, native verification, build,
release dry run, and browser checks. Native protocol CI passed 1,986
tests, plus 1,671 API tests and the Rust suites.
- Latest-head Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings. All 33 current-head
checks are successful or intentionally skipped.
## Risks
- Uses one additional short-lived verification runner per release
verification. The existing AWS exact-master restriction remains in
place.
- The Rust lane warms debug dependencies so its cache save also serves
protocol tests. Both lanes always rebuild workspace code.
- A workflow regression could omit a check. The new coverage test
compares the matrix checks directly with `check:all`; Cloud readiness
depends on the complete reusable workflow.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code
execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed
by this environment.
## 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 first agent helps the board define work and hire other agents.
> - That agent can have the general role while its instructions require
hiring skills.
> - Missing skills and blocked schema discovery make valid requests
fail.
> - Repeated confirmation and invalid waiting guidance can turn these
failures into extra runs.
> - This PR supplies the required skills, opens read-only schema
discovery, and corrects the guidance.
> - The agent can complete an authorized hire while company approval and
duplicate checks still apply.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13068 — the first-task onboarding flow that this change repairs.
Refs #12029 — related drift between the sandbox allowlist and bundled
hiring guidance. This PR adds schema access; it does not replace the
earlier hiring-route fix.
**What happened?**
A general-role onboarding chief received hiring instructions without the
core hiring skills. Sandbox requests to the documented OpenAPI endpoint
failed. The agent then guessed question and hire payloads. The persona
required new confirmation after validation errors and described waiting
states that agents cannot set.
**Expected behavior**
A direct request authorizes the requested hire. The chief asks only for
material missing details, uses valid API payloads, and completes the
task. Formal company approval gates still apply. A saved human-input
card gives the task a valid waiting state.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create an onboarding chief with role `general` through the board.
2. Ask it to hire a friendly robot with a supplied name and
responsibilities.
3. Check its assigned skills, schema requests, question cards, hire
requests, and final task state.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on the first-task onboarding implementation after #13068. The
live local verification used this branch at `112f44610`.
**Deployment mode**
The original failure used a hosted sandbox with legacy Codex ACP. Live
verification used an isolated local instance and real `codex_local`
execution. Queue and HTTP/2 transport access is covered by automated
tests.
## What Changed
- Give board-created onboarding chiefs the existing core skills
regardless of role. Preserve explicit skill version pins, including
aliases. Keep ordinary general-agent defaults and authorization checks.
- Allow exactly `GET /api/openapi.json` through both sandbox bridge
transports.
- Publish validator-tested question, free-text, hire, and waiting
examples. Regenerate the runner API reference and capability inventory.
- Clarify direct authorization, material ambiguity, and correction of
confirmed pre-creation validation failures. Preserve uncertain-outcome
reconciliation, duplicate protection, and company approval gates.
- Align disposition instructions with agent permissions and the saved
human-input waiting path.
## Verification
- After rebasing onto current `master`: 69 targeted server tests, 110
queue/HTTP2 bridge tests, and 4 capability inventory tests passed. These
cover core skill defaults, version pins, actor restrictions, schema
access, published examples, hire validation, idempotency, and approval
gates. Waiting recovery tests and live question flows also passed before
the rebase.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed again after the rebase.
Frozen dependency installation and both generated capability checks
passed.
- Ran the full `pnpm test:run` suite. The initial run had 14 failed
server files due to local database resource limits, a missing built test
fixture, and socket failures. All 14 files passed after fixture repair
and isolated retries. UI, CLI, workspace packages, database tests, and
all 145 serialized server files passed.
- Real one-request hiring replay: one hire, one successful run, task
done in 2m16s. No repeated approval or recovery escalation.
- Real two-turn browser conversation: start with an unspecified hire,
then supply a name and friendly robot responsibilities. One
clarification card, one hire, two successful runs, task done in 3m27s of
execution. No failed writes, confirmation cards, or recovery actions.
- Assigned the hired robot a welcome-message task through the browser.
It produced a warm message under 100 words and finished in one
successful 66-second run, with no questions or recovery actions.
- The two-turn flow still asked an optional preferences question and
gave a technical final reply. These are remaining presentation limits.
- Greptile: 5/5 on `b71f83ba2`, with zero unresolved review threads.
Fixed its generator finding and passed 1,655 published-example/runtime
API tests plus server typecheck. All latest-head CI checks are green (32
passed; 2 unrelated Storybook checks skipped). The signoff-policy
browser test initially timed out while waiting for an approver run. Its
shard passed on one rerun without code changes. [CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34698211049).
## Risks
- Onboarding chiefs receive more default skills. Ordinary general agents
retain existing defaults, and explicit versions take precedence.
- Prompt guidance can affect model behavior. The live replays are
examples, not a guarantee that every model follows the guidance.
- Retry guidance applies only when validation confirms that nothing was
created. Uncertain outcomes still require checking existing agents.
- No database migration or new public endpoint. Existing company
boundaries, approval gates, and bounded recovery remain in force.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-6-astra`, with reasoning, tool use, code
editing, and live browser verification. The exact context-window size is
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.
> - Conversations must use the same tasks, controls, and execution
history.
> - Users need an ongoing chat with an agent without managing task
properties.
> - Agents should clarify and plan work, then hand execution to assigned
project tasks.
> - This pull request combines the reviewed Agent Chat stack for one
squash merge.
> - The benefit is persistent conversation with normal task governance
and shared UI.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Task lifecycle, agent runtime tools, shared task UI, and browser/paid
runner tests.
**Problem or motivation**
Users need one persistent conversation with each agent. A separate chat
store or renderer would duplicate task behavior and bypass existing
controls.
**Proposed solution**
Use a task-backed chat per company, user, and agent. Reuse the task
composer and transcript. Clarify and plan in chat, then create assigned
project tasks with the relevant plan. Keep Agent Chat behind its own
disabled-by-default experimental setting.
**Roadmap alignment**
This implements the task-backed direction in [CEO
Chat](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/master/ROADMAP.md#-ceo-chat).
Related proposals: #2504 and #9693. Related request: #7981. The
maintainer requested one squash merge of the complete stack.
Consolidates the reviewed runtime
[#13281](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13281), backend
[#13282](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13282), and UI
[#13283](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13283) layers
with this PR's E2E coverage. All four layers passed CI and received
Greptile 5/5 before consolidation. This PR targets master and includes
the complete feature.
## What Changed
- Add personal canonical chat tasks with ordinary company visibility,
immutable identity, idempotent first sends, and an idle waiting state.
- Process `/new` in queue order. Preserve history, release a chat pause,
and fence old provider context and delayed writes.
- Keep chat lifecycle rules across recovery, finalization, assignment,
task lists, and rollups.
- Support research and plan revision in chat. Hand plans to ordinary
assigned project tasks before execution starts. Reject new chat
subtasks.
- Add repository-aware project creation and discovery tools, including
multiple repository IDs and GitHub URLs, authorization, idempotency, and
durable project-created cards.
- Reuse task UI components for chat, with starred/recent agent
navigation and a separate `enableAgentChat` experimental flag.
- Add deterministic browser tests and 24 paid chat cells across four
Codex/Claude profiles, with validated reports and screenshots.
- Integrate current master recovery, controller lease, queued-message,
and task UI changes. Gate chat interruption and deferred promotion on
ownership/feature policy. Guarantee lease renewal and active controls
are stopped even if teardown fails.
- Preserve master's migration 0273 and generate chat migration 0274 with
idempotent replay for development databases.
## Verification
- Prior exact heads of all four PRs passed Linux CI, including build,
typecheck, general/serialized tests, and browser E2E. Each had Greptile
5/5 and no unresolved findings.
- Integrated local verification passed: full repository typecheck and
production build, Storybook build, token gates, 340 focused UI tests,
all 20 deterministic chat browser tests, two migration replay tests, 88
focused chat/queue/native/controller tests, and provider/session
regressions including real lease expiry. These include the three
lifecycle regressions for the final admission/teardown fixes; server
typecheck also passes. Current head
`1268eda16cc2af892055917e7292f068820be135` has Greptile 5/5 with no
unresolved findings and passing security scans. All final-head CI gates
passed: build, full Runner verification, typecheck/release registry,
canary, all general/serialized test shards, and all browser E2E shards
([CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34696739927)).
Local PostgreSQL startup contention required serialized retries; skipped
fixtures do not count as passing coverage.
- The earlier paid campaign passed all 24 chat cells and retained 32
screenshots:
[report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-34648511170-1/index.html?report=agent-chat#suite-agent-chat).
It tested `abacbdfd2f660709ec37312cdb758284c8399d04`; it is prior
evidence, not a paid run of this integrated head.
- Manual check: enable Agent Chat in Experimental settings, open an
agent, clarify and revise a plan, then hand off to an assigned project
task. Stop a reply, send `/new`, and verify fresh context with retained
history. Disable the setting and verify agent shortcuts/new chat turns
are blocked.
## Risks
- Queue/session integration can affect retries and delayed writes. Tests
cover ownership, cancellation, reset boundaries, idle recovery, and
ordinary task behavior.
- Migration 0274 adds conversation fields and constraints. Replay is
idempotent and preserves existing development chat history.
- This combines the previously reviewed stack at the maintainer's
request. Agent Chat remains off by default and is separate from
Conference Room.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 Astra (`gpt-6-astra`), with reasoning, code
execution, browser tools, and parallel review. The exact context-window
size is not exposed in this session. Codex and Claude also ran as test
subjects in the linked paid campaign.
## 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.
> - Cloud releases wait for source verification before deployment.
> - That verification reuses compiled Rust dependencies to finish
sooner.
> - PR jobs save large pnpm stores under separate merge refs and
different lockfile keys.
> - Those copies compete with master build caches for the repository's
10 GB cache limit.
> - This PR makes PR dependency caches restore-only and reuses
master-compatible keys.
> - A separate pin update will activate the reviewed workflow.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
PR merge refs accumulated roughly 700 MB copies of the same pnpm store.
Master Rust caches disappeared, and Cloud readiness run
[34656098157](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34656098157)
rebuilt dependencies after cache misses. The repository currently has a
10 GB limit. GitHub rejected a request for 50 GB; that setting needs
separate organization/billing access.
**Expected behavior**
PR jobs should reuse downloaded packages without evicting post-merge
compilation caches through duplicate uploads.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run several PRs while the checked-in lockfile needs policy
regeneration.
2. Compare the setup-node keys in PR jobs and master jobs.
3. List Actions caches by ref, key, and archive size. The PR keys repeat
across merge refs.
**Paperclip version or commit**
f12b647ae, before this change.
**Deployment mode**
GitHub Actions, with GitHub-hosted and allowlisted AWS PR runners.
Refs #13267 (empty pnpm store prevention). Searched open issues and PRs
for pnpm cache duplication and found no duplicate implementation. This
change leaves the paused capacity documentation PR #13280 alone.
## What Changed
- Replace setup-node cache writes with pinned `actions/cache/restore` in
all seven PR install job definitions.
- Restore against the checked-in lockfile before downloading the
regenerated policy artifact. Keep every install frozen against that
artifact.
- Allow an OS/architecture-specific pnpm fallback and disable automatic
setup-node caching.
- Remove dependency-store caching from the resolution-only policy job.
- Add eight regression tests, update the existing stacked-lockfile cache
assertion, and document cache behavior and storage settings.
## Verification
- Passed 505 workflow, routing, cache, and source-verification tests:
`node --test '.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs'
scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs
scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs
scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs
scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs`.
- Passed `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml` and `git diff
--check`.
- The AWS routing gate is unchanged. Author, event sender, and rerun
actor must still be allowlisted.
- This definition PR does not change the active `pr.yml` pin. After
review and merge, authorize its immutable merge SHA additively and
activate it in a separate PR. Verify a populated restore and no cache
uploads in an allowlisted PR.
- All 32 checks passed or were intentionally skipped on
`44b31eca590f61b75cae646de43c491b6c4deae7`, including full native Runner
verification, application build, server/workspace tests, and browser
shards. Current-head Greptile is 5/5 with no findings. No application
code changes in this PR.
## Risks
- New dependencies present only in a PR may download again on each run
until master saves a cache containing them. Frozen installation remains
the source of dependency resolution.
- Missing or expired stores fall back to normal package downloads.
- Existing PR copies remain until expiry or a separate targeted cleanup.
No cache entries are deleted here.
- The workflow only takes effect after the separate immutable pin
rotation. Storage billing settings are not changed by this PR.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code
execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed
by this environment.
## 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 test-drive command starts an isolated instance for local
testing.
> - Source startup builds shared packages before it starts the server.
> - An interrupted build can leave an empty lock directory.
> - Later starts wait without output and fail after 60 seconds.
> - This pull request recovers abandoned locks and shows build progress.
> - Local testing can start again without manual lock removal.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
`pnpm paperclipai test-drive` stopped at “Starting Paperclip server…” in
a source checkout. A leftover plugin build lock caused a silent
60-second wait and then a timeout.
**Expected behavior**
Startup should recover an abandoned build lock. It should show when it
waits for a live build. An interrupted or failed build should not leave
partial output that the next start accepts as complete.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Leave an empty `node_modules/.cache/paperclip-plugin-build-deps.lock`
directory after an interrupted build.
2. Make the shared or plugin SDK build output out of date.
3. Run `pnpm paperclipai test-drive --api-key placeholder --no-browser`
with a fresh data directory.
4. Observe the silent wait at server startup.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced at `2083bf6f9`.
**Deployment mode**
Local source checkout with an isolated embedded PostgreSQL instance.
Related work: #12894 added test-drive. #12898 restored its credential
inputs. Neither change handles abandoned workspace build locks. No
duplicate fix was found.
## What Changed
- Publish a lock directory with an owner record in one rename.
- Recover locks after their owner and compiler exit. Recover legacy
empty locks after two minutes.
- Keep the lock until the compiler stops on SIGINT or SIGTERM.
- Print build and lock-wait progress.
- Record source, dependency, compiler-config, and output content
fingerprints only after a successful compile. Recover partial output
even when modification times are unchanged.
- Add 12 process-level regression tests and update the development
guide.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/ensure-plugin-build-deps.test.mjs`: 12
tests pass.
- `pnpm exec vitest run --config cli/vitest.config.ts
cli/src/__tests__/test-drive.test.ts`: 32 tests pass.
- `pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck`: passed.
- `pnpm --filter paperclipai build`: passed.
- Live smoke tests: fresh startup and startup with an abandoned lock
both reach ready state. The API and UI respond. The command creates the
company and CEO and enables worktree execution. Test instances stop
cleanly.
- Full repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed.
- Full Vitest suite coverage completed using the repository-supported
server, chat, workspace, and serialized shards. The initial local run
needed the fresh-worktree fake native-provider binary built and focused
reruns for port/socket races and load-related timeouts; all affected
tests passed on rerun. Suites skipped by fail-fast exits were run
separately and passed. The initial serial `pnpm test:run` was stopped in
favor of these shards.
- Greptile: 5/5 on commit `8b5a790c2af06a52b5dc76e5f52331966df990b8`,
with all review threads resolved.
- CI: 31 checks passed and two Storybook checks intentionally skipped.
The initial workspace and browser jobs were interrupted by runner
shutdowns; both passed on the second attempt. Build, typecheck, canary
dry run, all general and serialized tests, all browser shards, security
checks, and final verification summaries are green. [CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34654730783)
## Risks
- This changes shared source-build locking for the CLI and plugin SDK
commands.
- Legacy locks have no owner identity. Recovery uses a two-minute age
threshold for empty legacy directories.
- Startup reads and hashes source and output files to verify the build
cache. Identical direct builds reuse the cache. Changed or partial
output requires a rebuild.
- A reused process ID can delay recovery. Live owner or compiler
processes keep their lock.
- No database, API, or UI contract changes.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex, with reasoning, tool use, code execution, and
process-level testing. A more specific API model 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
#` 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.
> - Legacy conversation adapters can run in Daytona sandboxes.
> - A server restart during provisioning can occur before the invocation
event exists.
> - Recovery then lacks the old adapter identity and leaves a hold that
ordinary user retries cannot clear.
> - A remote launch can also fail when its host relay looks for Node in
the sandbox PATH.
> - This pull request records the adapter at claim time and restores
explicit user continuation after verified cleanup.
> - Users can recover from the task or inbox while the failed run and
uncertain action history remain intact.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13237, #13239, #13254. Those changes cover recorded conversation
runs, native user continuation, and explicit remote Stop. This change
covers legacy failure before `adapter.invoke` and exact task/inbox
Retry.
Refs #9771 for overlapping generated-command quoting. This change also
supplies the absolute host Node executable. Refs #13163 and #13264 for
the separate native restart and retained-workspace work.
**What happened?**
A legacy Daytona run interrupted during provisioning became
`process_lost` without an invocation event. Recovery preserved an
execution hold, and Retry or a new task reply could not resume it.
Cleanup could also run before the Daytona plugin was ready. On a macOS
host, a subsequent ACP relay launch failed with `env: node: No such file
or directory` because the remote launch environment did not contain the
host Node path.
**Expected behavior**
An interrupted conversation can continue after its previous execution
stops. Explicit Retry and new user replies should start a fresh turn
with the task history. Cleanup failures must remain visible and
recoverable. The host relay must use the host Node executable.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Use a legacy Claude adapter with a Daytona environment.
2. Interrupt the server after it acquires the sandbox lease and before
it records `adapter.invoke`.
3. Restart and inspect the task hold.
4. Retry from the task or inbox, or send a new task reply.
5. Confirm the old sandbox has stopped and one new response arrives.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced from master at `3bafac12f796fbea02e609e1074a9639f872e9c4`.
The branch is rebased on `51b0e01ea`, including #13261 and #13270.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source on macOS with a real Daytona sandbox and the legacy
Claude ACP adapter.
## What Changed
- Count new browser specs with the scheduler's median duration in the
shard-balance check. This fixes a false policy failure after new specs
arrive from both branches. The balance threshold is unchanged.
- Persist server-owned adapter identity in the queued-to-running claim
before provisioning starts.
- Wait for provider plugin startup before restart cleanup. Keep failed
cleanup leases as active ownership blockers.
- Admit exact board retries and new user comments after verified
termination. Retain the old run, task history, approvals, and unknown
action outcomes.
- Adopt repeated Retry requests. Permit one scoped cleanup attempt per
explicit user Retry after the automatic limit, with an activity record.
A later user Retry can recover after a transient provider failure;
automatic attempts remain capped.
- Resume replies deferred during cleanup, including historical legacy
startup failures.
- Launch the host ACP relay through the absolute host Node executable.
- Add a task-level Retry button and return actionable blockers when
retry admission is refused.
- Add database regressions and three browser recovery journeys. Exclude
installed third-party dependency skills from the shipped-skill audit.
## Verification
- Current head: `d23c84181`, rebased on `51b0e01ea`. Conflict resolution
retains the saved-message recovery, local stop receipts, and wait
reasons from #13270 alongside exact legacy Retry support.
- Real Daytona: interrupted the server after lease acquisition and
before adapter invocation. Restart cleanup confirmed provider
termination. Task Retry cleared a seeded historical hold and a real
Claude agent returned `Recovery verified.` in the task. Removed the
disposable sandbox and environment after testing.
- All three browser recovery journeys passed again after the final
rebase. Task Retry, Inbox Retry, and a new reply each produced one fresh
successor, completed the task, preserved the failed run, and retained
the answer after reload.
- All 29 e2e/server shard-partition tests passed. The balance check now
uses the scheduler's median fallback for unmeasured specs, with the same
balance threshold.
- Server typecheck passed after rebuilding the generated runner
dependencies. The combined recovery/route run passed 136 of 137 tests.
Its remaining route test timed out during the first cold module import
at its explicit 10-second limit; an isolated rerun reproduced that
timeout and passed the other 51 route cases. The complete CI suite
passed on this head. The same route file passed all 52 cases in CI,
including the first cold import in 7.5 seconds.
- Before the final rebase, recursive typecheck, full build, UI token
gates, 132 targeted server tests, and the complete [CI
workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34650004085)
passed. The subsequent CI failure was the shard-balance accounting
mismatch fixed here.
- Greptile reviewed `d23c84181` at 5/5 with no outstanding actionable
findings. The complete [current CI
workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34653327949)
passed on attempt 2. All test, typecheck, build, and canary jobs passed
on the first attempt. Docker setup timed out fetching BuildKit from
Docker Hub; retrying that job and its dependent aggregate succeeded.
## Risks
- Recovery admission changes executable authority. Company, task, agent,
user, approvals, process ownership, and provider termination checks
remain required.
- Explicit continuation starts a fresh conversation with history. It
does not certify unknown external action outcomes or rerun
non-conversation adapters automatically.
- Changing task status alone does not clear an execution hold. The task
now offers an explicit Retry action.
- Historical adapter claims and invocation events take precedence over
current agent settings. Known process or webhook runs retain their hold.
Pre-upgrade rows with no adapter evidence may receive only a new
explicit user turn after termination proof; they do not become eligible
for automatic replay.
- No schema migration or sandbox-image change is required. This branch
has not been deployed to production.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, code execution,
browser automation, and test execution. The exact deployment model ID
and context window 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
- [ ] 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.
> - Cloud deployment requires source verification for the exact merged
commit.
> - Contributor PRs leave lockfile updates to a separate bot PR.
> - Most release checks can refresh an outdated lockfile while
installing dependencies.
> - Two Runner checks still require a frozen lockfile and fail after
dependency changes.
> - This PR gives those checks the same install policy as the other
release checks.
> - A valid dependency change can become deployable without waiting for
another merge.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13257. The dependency change in #13256 exposed this gap. The
separate lockfile update is #13279. Related #12115 addresses the bot PR
check trigger; this PR fixes exact-source cloud verification itself.
**What happened?**
[Cloud readiness for
2083bf6](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34651761811)
failed in the Runner scorer and chaos jobs with
`ERR_PNPM_OUTDATED_LOCKFILE`. The commit added `svix` to server
dependencies. The tracked lockfile still describes the previous
manifest. The other release checks install with `--no-frozen-lockfile`.
**Expected behavior**
Every source check installs and tests the same checked-out commit. A
pending bot lockfile PR must not block cloud readiness.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Check out master commit 250deab, which retains the manifest/lockfile
mismatch.
2. Run `pnpm install --ignore-scripts --frozen-lockfile`. It fails with
the same outdated-lockfile error.
3. Run `pnpm install --ignore-scripts --no-frozen-lockfile
--resolution-only`. It succeeds.
4. Restore the generated lockfile. This PR does not commit it.
## What Changed
- Use `--no-frozen-lockfile` in the release Runner scorer job.
- Use the same option in the reusable Runner chaos workflow.
- Document why cloud source checks allow a job-local lockfile refresh.
- Update the existing Runner scorer workflow assertion to match its
install policy.
## Verification
- All 457 workflow tests pass across `.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs`
and `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`.
- `actionlint` passes for both changed workflows.
- Reproduced the frozen install failure against the real tracked
manifest and lockfile. The refresh command passes in 4.6 seconds.
- `git diff --check` passes. No lockfile changes remain.
- No application source changes. Full local application typecheck,
build, and test commands were not rerun in this dependency-free workflow
worktree. Current-head GitHub CI must pass before merge.
- After merge, verify both affected jobs pass on the exact master source
even if the lockfile bot PR remains pending.
## Risks
pnpm can resolve allowed dependency ranges when a manifest outgrows the
tracked lockfile. This matches the existing release install policy. The
resulting lockfile stays in the job workspace. Verification commands and
runner routing are unchanged. The security reviewer explicitly accepted
this existing dependency-policy tradeoff for both jobs after reviewing
repository policy and the source/authorization checks. A future shared
immutable dependency artifact would improve reproducibility across jobs.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code
execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed
by this environment.
## 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] Local verification passes: all 457 workflow tests, actionlint, and
the stale-lockfile reproduction described 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.
> - Connections give agents controlled access to external services.
> - Experimental channels already map conversations to tasks and durable
work queues.
> - Email needs inbox ownership, recipient envelopes, delivery records,
and explicit sends.
> - This pull request adds AgentMail to that infrastructure and keeps
the provider key in the server vault.
> - Agents can receive and send email from local or sandbox execution
while the board follows each conversation in its task.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
Agents need dedicated email addresses. Incoming email should become
assigned work. Internal task comments and progress must never become
outgoing email by accident.
**Proposed solution**
Add experimental AgentMail connections, an inbox assignment wizard,
durable email intake and publication, task email cards, and
authenticated API, CLI, and native runtime actions. Agents use Paperclip
credentials to request sends. Paperclip owns the provider key and
enforces access and task authority.
**Alternatives considered**
A general mailbox MCP connector does not provide durable task binding or
publication boundaries. A separate mailbox application duplicates task
collaboration. The board instead directs the agent through the normal
task conversation.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the existing experimental connections and task
infrastructure. Product scope and interaction design were reviewed with
the maintainer. Related connection authority work: #11831 and #11818.
The duplicate search found no competing task-based AgentMail
integration.
## What Changed
- Add AgentMail catalog data, shared contracts, company-scoped email
records, and an additive migration.
- Add vaulted setup, inbox assignment, access grants, trust guidance,
and provider-side allowlist guidance.
- Support WebSocket and signed-webhook intake through a shared durable
pipeline, deduplication, catch-up, and task wakeups.
- Queue explicit new conversations and replies with immutable send
intents, idempotency, delivery state, and uncertain-send resolution.
- Show inbound and outbound email cards in normal task conversations.
Keep internal messages internal.
- Add task-scoped CLI actions and the sandbox callback routes required
for Daytona execution.
- Provide a dedicated AgentMail skill automatically only to agents with
active authorized inbox assignments. Keep email instructions out of the
universal Paperclip skill.
- Advertise connector-owned `agentmail_inboxes`,
`agentmail_read_thread`, `agentmail_send`, and `agentmail_delivery`
tools only in eligible native sessions. Recheck live authority on
execution.
- Isolate Codex CLI connector skills by agent and skill revision.
Deliver the assigned skill in the run prompt for adapters that use
shared skill directories, including resumed turns. Keep automatic skills
out of manual persistent sync. Show them as read-only and document the
pattern in the connector playbook.
- Fix AgentMail health checks that entered local-stdio validation and
optional missing Codex credential cleanup in sandboxes.
- Add API, pipeline, authorization, sandbox, browser, and Storybook
coverage.
## Verification
- Live AgentMail testing covered WebSocket intake, signed webhooks,
restart catch-up, and a full receive → task → Daytona Codex CLI →
explicit reply → Delivered round trip. The reply was verified in the
other inbox. The normal task composer also initiated an outgoing email
child task.
- The connector-skill change was verified in the browser: AgentMail
appears once as an automatic, read-only skill with its assigned address.
Disabling experimental chat connections removes it; re-enabling restores
it. A regression test covers assignment data arriving after library
data.
- Connector regression coverage passed 178 runtime utility, email
integration, skill-route, and heartbeat tests. All 17 Codex execution
tests passed, including per-agent skill isolation, model identity,
revision changes, removal, and prompt delivery without shared skill
files.
- After rebasing onto master, all 44 focused email, heartbeat, and
native-authority tests passed. All 313 native-session executor tests
passed. The UI regression suite passed all 3 tests. These test sets
overlap earlier focused runs.
- Full workspace typecheck and build passed after the rebase. Token
gates passed. Earlier focused Playwright task/setup coverage and the
Storybook build also passed.
- Native connector tool execution uses deterministic integration tests.
Live Daytona qualification used the Codex CLI adapter; the new
shared-home prompt fallback has deterministic coverage.
- The full repository suite is run by CI. The earlier unsharded local
full-suite attempt was stopped after the equivalent CI suites passed and
is not reported as a completed local run. Greptile reviewed
`7e57dc267a8446d3c906e3cc5b8abc94fb8860eb` at 5/5 with no unresolved
threads. All server, workspace, serialized server, and browser suites
passed in CI. The build job hit a five-second timeout in a runner
transport test; both variants and the full 80-test file passed locally
with unchanged timeouts. The build passed on retry on the same commit
without code or timeout changes. All required CI gates, including the
final `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` summaries, are green on
`7e57dc267a8446d3c906e3cc5b8abc94fb8860eb`.
## Risks
- Email from external senders can start normal agent work. Setup
recommends a low-trust agent and AgentMail sender controls. Sender
addresses never grant board membership.
- Provider timeouts can leave uncertain sends. Retries retain their
idempotency key; expired windows require reconciliation or operator
resolution.
- Connector skills and native tools are assignment-dependent and require
current access. Revocation denies retained calls; assignment changes
select a new runtime context.
- Activation remains behind the experimental-channel setting. The native
runner path has deterministic coverage; live Daytona qualification used
the Codex CLI adapter.
- Schema changes are additive. Inbox ownership is unique across
companies. Disconnect preserves provider inboxes and task history.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex). Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution,
and browser testing. The exact deployment model ID and context-window
size were 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.
> - Its recovery loop keeps assigned work moving after execution
failures.
> - Productivity review used run counts, comment counts, and elapsed
time to create management tasks.
> - Infrastructure failures could satisfy those rules and create more
tasks without evidence that the source work needed management review.
> - This pull request removes that detector and its continuation holds.
> - Bounded recovery, budgets, explicit blockers, and normal review
stages remain in place.
> - Existing task records stay readable and unchanged.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #5897. That request describes unwanted automatic productivity
reviews and asks to preserve existing tasks. This change retires the
feature instead of adding another configuration switch.
Related prior approaches: Refs #9191, Refs #12489. Those changes
excluded infrastructure failures or bounded review creation. This
removal replaces the detector rather than tuning its thresholds.
## What Changed
- Delete the scheduled detector, automatic task creation, evidence
refresh, and productivity continuation holds.
- Remove computed productivity fields, special attention items, badges,
and Storybook fixtures.
- Retain historical origin values, decision compatibility, and recovery
recursion exclusions. Add no migration and change no existing task data.
- Update the execution contract. Replace feature tests with regressions
for legacy task reads, ordinary attention, and bounded continuation in
the presence of an old review.
## Verification
- Targeted attention, issue-route, startup, and UI tests: 4 files and
101 tests passed.
- Updated issue-route and UI tests: 2 files and 61 tests passed.
- Bounded continuation regression: 2 cases passed, including a legacy
review plus pre-dispatch cancellation churn.
- `pnpm check:token-gates`: all four gates passed.
- `git diff --check`: passed.
- `pnpm build-storybook`: passed.
- Greptile: 5/5 on `a5a612eea`, with no actionable findings.
- Scheduler and historical recovery regressions: 2 files and 28 tests
passed.
- Repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed.
- The complete `pnpm test:run` suite passed across the CI server,
serialized-server, and workspace shards on `a5a612eea`. Stopped the
duplicate local monolithic run after the full CI suite passed; no
completed local full-suite result is claimed. The targeted local suites
above passed.
- CI serialized shard 5 initially hit a 10-second timeout in the first
interaction-route test. The complete file passed locally (78 tests),
then the single CI rerun passed.
- All CI gates are green, including the build and end-to-end suites.
- A local merge check against current `master` (`ce09ea40b`) completed
without conflicts.
## Risks
- API responses no longer include the computed `productivityReview`
field. Consumers must stop using it.
- The scheduler no longer creates management work from elapsed time, run
counts, or missing comments. This is the intended behavior change.
- Existing review tasks and explicit dependencies remain in place.
Historical origins still prevent recursive recovery treatment. No task
cleanup or data migration occurs.
- The native review handoff repair is separate from this removal.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code
execution. The exact runtime model 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>
Keep current task continuation, chat UI, provider security, and multi-architecture build behavior. Regenerate the work-folder schema after the published migration sequence and make it replay-safe for preview databases. Verify preserved file/trash/checkpoint references and company constraints on PostgreSQL.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks.
> - A task can outlive a provider process or a server restart.
> - Legacy recovery treated unknown tool outcomes as a permanent
execution hold.
> - That hold could also reject a later user message.
> - A conversation turn can use prior history without replaying prior
tool calls.
> - This pull request lets supported conversation adapters continue
within the existing retry budget.
> - Users can send a new message after automatic attempts stop.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A server restart could interrupt a local ACP run and leave its task
behind a permanent recovery hold. A later user message could be
cancelled before the provider answered. The immediate recovery path
could also create a successor outside the durable failure counter.
**Expected behavior**
Continue with a bounded new conversation turn. Preserve a compatible
provider session or use full task context when it is unavailable. Do not
replay recorded tools. When automatic attempts stop, allow a new user
request through the normal execution gates.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a task with a local conversation adapter.
2. Restart the server while the provider is working.
3. Let the previous run become interrupted.
4. Send a follow-up message and observe the recovery hold on the old
behavior.
Related work: Refs #13075 for durable task recovery. Refs #12946 for
retry-limit and checkout-lock handling. This change routes conversation
recovery through the existing bounded scheduler.
## What Changed
- Mark supported local conversation failures for continuation. Keep
native-runner and non-conversation recovery rules.
- Carry an interruption notice into the next turn. Retain stopped ACP
session history even when a write outcome is unknown.
- Clear unavailable ACP sessions so the next bounded attempt can use
full task context.
- Route immediate failure recovery through the same durable scheduler as
process-loss recovery. Release only the predecessor checkout when its
retry takes ownership.
- Retire obsolete conversation holds using immutable run evidence, in
bounded batches with an activity record. Preserve outcome evidence and
do not wake historical tasks.
- Block actual admission and Resume while a predecessor process or
environment lease is still active. Keep the original interruption notice
after a rejected wake. Preserve the upstream blocked-wake waiting
contract: bounded retry planning can happen during cleanup, while
deferred messages and execution remain gated.
- Add subprocess and database regression tests. Update the execution
contract.
- Add the current thread-status field to the native recovery provider
fixture so its damaged-journal test reaches the intended boundary.
Tolerate an already-exited fixture process during test cleanup while
still asserting both processes terminate.
## Verification
- Workspace typecheck passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`.
- Build passed: `pnpm build`.
- Module boundaries passed: `pnpm check:module-boundaries`.
- Focused tests passed: 293 recovery/session/dispatch tests, 66 retry
and response-gate tests, and 37 native-session tests. Some suites
overlap.
- Tests cover interrupted writes, missing sessions, concurrent retries,
restart persistence, pending questions and approvals, execution gates,
and historical holds.
- Built the Rust test executables with `pnpm --filter
@paperclipai/paperclip-runner build:rust` for native-runner
verification.
- Full Vitest coverage verified locally using the repository’s general
and serialized shards, with focused reruns for failures and files not
reached after a shard stopped. The ownership-gate regression is fixed
and the complete affected server shard passes (1,390 tests). Local
parallel runs also hit temporary-directory, resource, and timing
failures; those suites pass with canonical temporary paths and
sequential reruns. No test timeouts were increased.
- Final merged-branch regression run: 577 tests pass across process
recovery, retry scheduling, liveness, durable chat, wake-queue
application/adapter, dispatch, continuation, native sessions, and task
chat. Earlier focused verification also passed 19 native control tests.
Token gates and whitespace validation pass.
- Browser verification passed all three ACP Stop/continue/pause
scenarios, including a rerun after merging the upstream waiting
behavior: `PAPERCLIP_E2E_PORT=3397 pnpm test:e2e
tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. The interrupted-write case
verifies that follow-up completes without a repeated write.
- Final-head [CI run
34625037394](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34625037394)
passed on `06ac4bd9d150f8b209a96e5fd609c696958794a0`: all 31 reported
checks are green, including server/workspace suites, all browser shards,
native runner verification, build, typecheck, release dry run, and
aggregate gates. The two conditional Storybook checks were skipped.
Greptile reviewed this exact commit at 5/5; all review threads are
resolved.
## Risks
- A new model turn can choose to repeat an action. Paperclip does not
replay recorded tool calls and does not certify unknown action outcomes.
- Conversation adapters now stop after their retry budget instead of
requiring action reconciliation. Explicit Stop, pause, dependency,
approval, budget, and ownership gates remain in force.
- No schema migration or dependency changes. Historical holds are folded
without changing task status or waking work.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, and test execution. The session does not expose a more
specific model build ID or context-window size.
## 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>
Reuse the exact master source-verification result before npm canary publication, removing a duplicate verification matrix while preserving fail-closed release checks.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work.
> - Maintainers use Storybook previews to review the board UI.
> - Branch previews need stable bookmarks that people can read.
> - The current publisher only provides a hashed branch path.
> - This pull request adds a readable branch bookmark after each
successful upload.
> - Existing branch and build links keep working.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13226.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Manual Storybook publication for repository branches.
**Current behavior**
The stable branch path contains a hash. The expected
`/storybook/branches/master/` URL does not exist.
**Proposed behavior**
Each publication updates a readable bookmark. The action summary and
Markdown artifact link it. Master uses `/storybook/branches/master/`.
Other names use a safe path segment that preserves case and escapes
special characters.
**Reason and benefit**
Maintainers can save and share a readable URL that opens the latest
published branch build.
**Breaking changes**
None. Existing hashed branch entries still update. Existing build URLs
remain valid.
**Additional context**
This follows the publisher in #13226. A duplicate search found no
related bookmark change. It does not overlap planned core work in
ROADMAP.md.
## What Changed
- Generate readable branch bookmarks without collisions with existing
build directories.
- Upload the bookmark only after the full build and compatibility entry
uploads succeed.
- Link the bookmark in the existing summary and Markdown artifact.
- Document branch-name escaping and test path isolation, stable links,
and upload order.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-deploy.test.mjs`: 20 tests
pass.
- `actionlint .github/workflows/storybook-deploy.yml
.github/workflows/storybook-visual.yml`: passes.
- `git diff --check`: passes.
- [Master bookmark
publication](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34613344758):
passed. Opened `/storybook/branches/master/` in the browser and
confirmed a story renders. Downloaded the Markdown report and verified
its bookmark link.
- [Feature branch bookmark
publication](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34613449034):
passed. Its separate bookmark uses `codex~2Fstorybook-bookmarks`.
- Greptile: 5/5 on `dccaf10413ecf447cb34e622b6b3c505791abb51`, with no
unresolved review threads. All current-head Paperclip CI gates pass,
including typecheck, tests, build, browser suites, and the canary dry
run.
- Full local repository checks were not repeated for this focused
publisher change. The preceding run passed typecheck but encountered
unrelated native-session test failures.
## Risks
- Special characters in branch names use `~HH` byte escapes. For
example, `feature/foo` becomes `feature~2Ffoo`.
- Names that could overlap an existing hashed build directory escape the
final hyphen. Very long names retain a hash suffix.
- The two branch entries update separately. If the final upload fails,
the workflow fails and a rerun can repair the bookmark.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, shell tools, and live deployment
verification. The exact runtime model ID 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.
> - Cloud waits for source verification before deploying a new image.
> - The slowest server verification job spends about ten minutes running
tests.
> - Each job uses one test worker to preserve test isolation.
> - This pull request distributes those suites across ten standard
hosted runners.
> - The benefit is a shorter verification path with the same test
coverage.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Current behavior**
In [readiness run
34572340764](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34572340764),
the slowest server job ran for 638 seconds. Test execution used 594
seconds. This held readiness behind the image job.
**Proposed behavior**
Use ten general server jobs in the reusable release verification
workflow. Keep the three chat jobs and every existing prerequisite. The
complete partition test verifies that no server suite is omitted or
duplicated.
**Reason and benefit**
Reduce merge-to-deployable time on the existing runner type. The next
longest prerequisite was Runner verification at 526 seconds, so the
initial expected total gain is about two minutes rather than a halving
of readiness time. Measure actual queue and execution time before
claiming a result.
Related: #13198 introduced the separate chat lane. #12577 refreshes
duration estimates; this change leaves that manifest alone.
## What Changed
- Increase the general server matrix from five jobs to ten.
- Verify the ten-way partition covers the complete server suite when
combined with the chat lane.
- Document runner demand and the unchanged local and PR grouping.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs
scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: 29 passed.
- `actionlint .github/workflows/release-verify.yml`: passed.
- Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed.
- All latest-head GitHub CI checks passed, including the complete Linux
test partition, build, typecheck, and browser gates. Greptile: 5/5 with
zero open findings.
- [Ten-shard timing
probe](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34606772388):
all 16 jobs passed; slowest server job 6m 23s versus 10m 38s in the
earlier five-shard sample. This compares the server lane, not total
readiness, and is not a controlled same-source A/B.
- The full local `pnpm test:run` is also running. It has reproduced
previously observed macOS-only failures in unchanged skill-cache and
native-session suites; the corresponding Linux CI suites passed. Final
local results will be attached separately. No affected-workflow test
failed.
## Risks
Five additional concurrent jobs per release verification run increase
runner demand and repeated setup work. Queueing can offset the gain.
Test workers, timeouts, permissions, and readiness requirements stay
unchanged. Revert the matrix and its partition test to restore the
previous split.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 / Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The
exact serving model identifier and context-window size are not exposed
by 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 the affected workflow tests locally and they pass;
full-suite macOS limitations are disclosed 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 helps people manage AI agents for work.
> - Maintainers use Storybook to review the board UI.
> - Reviews need public previews of selected repository branches.
> - Each branch needs its own URL so previews do not replace each other.
> - This pull request adds manual, CODEOWNER-controlled publishing to S3
and CloudFront.
> - The action returns stable branch links and permanent build links in
its summary and a Markdown artifact.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The existing Storybook build and manual visual-review workflow.
**Current behavior**
The repository has no manual branch-preview publisher. A single GitHub
Pages site cannot support independent publishers without combining their
output.
**Proposed behavior**
A CODEOWNER selects a source branch and approves publication. Each
branch has a stable CloudFront URL. A completed build becomes the branch
target only after its upload succeeds. The action attaches
`storybook-deployment.md` with the preview links and source commit.
**Reason and benefit**
Maintainers can share multiple branch previews at the same time. Branch
builds have no repository token permissions or AWS credentials.
Dependency caching and install hooks are disabled. The publisher cannot
write runner dashboard files or delete objects.
**Breaking changes**
None. Normal visual checks keep their existing behavior. This does not
change application code or GitHub Pages settings.
**Additional context**
Searched public issues and PRs for Storybook deployment work. No
duplicate deployment proposal was found. This is maintainer
infrastructure, not a roadmap-level core feature.
## What Changed
- Add `Storybook Deploy` with a source-branch input and a manual entry
through `Storybook Visual`.
- Check the original actor and rerunner against default-branch
CODEOWNERS. Require a protected deployment environment with CODEOWNER
reviewers.
- Separate public-source builds with no repository permissions from an
OIDC publisher restricted to the Storybook S3 prefix.
- Publish distinct branch URLs and retain build URLs. Preserve Storybook
deep links across the branch redirect.
- Add the run summary, a downloadable Markdown deployment report,
focused tests, and operator setup docs and IAM policies.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-deploy.test.mjs`: 19 tests
pass.
- `actionlint .github/workflows/storybook-deploy.yml
.github/workflows/storybook-visual.yml`: passes.
- [Feature branch live publication and deployment-only
rerun](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34533202273):
passed.
- [Master branch live
publication](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34533204743):
passed.
- Both public branch URLs render a component story without browser
errors. A deployment-only rerun updates only the selected branch entry
and preserves the previous build URL.
- AWS policy simulation allows Storybook uploads and denies dashboard
writes and object deletion.
- Full local typechecking passes. Full local tests, build, and
current-head PR checks are running.
- [Revised build and Markdown artifact
validation](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34605623088):
passed. Downloaded the report and verified its branch URL, build URL,
and source commit.
- The public verifier also checks that the stable branch URL points to
this build and rejects stale targets.
## Risks
- Storybook previews are public. Maintainers must publish only public UI
fixtures.
- Retained builds accumulate until an operator prunes them.
- Environment reviewers must stay synchronized with CODEOWNERS. The
workflow fails closed if its environment loses required protection.
- The existing CloudFront distribution is shared with runner reports.
Separate S3 prefixes and a dedicated role prevent the publisher from
overwriting those reports.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, shell tools, and browser
verification. The exact runtime model ID 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
- [ ] 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Managed deployments start from the image built by the Cloud
workflow.
> - The managed runtime requests user and group 1001.
> - The image currently builds the node user as 1000.
> - Startup must remap that user, which can walk a large mounted home
directory.
> - This pull request uses the existing Docker build arguments to bake
user and group 1001 into Cloud images.
> - Matching the runtime identity removes that startup work and helps
avoid health-check retries.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13208, #1923, and #7861. Searched open and closed PRs for the
Cloud UID change. The older #7861 addresses build context and volume
ownership repair. This change uses the existing identity arguments in
the Cloud workflow and preserves ownership repair.
**What happened?**
A measured rollout had a container log `Updating node UID to 1001` after
startup. The container stayed at this step for at least 2 minutes 55
seconds before rollback stopped it. The baked node identity was 1000,
while the managed runtime requested 1001. A health check timed out and
the target required a second deployment attempt.
**Expected behavior**
Cloud images should already have the managed runtime identity. A
matching image should skip user and group remapping. Fresh or mismatched
volumes must still receive ownership repair.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Build the current Cloud image with its default build arguments.
2. Start it with `USER_UID=1001`, `USER_GID=1001`, and a populated home
volume.
3. Observe the startup user remap before the application starts.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`fc06f7f05f42c675be71ff0927b6334405d520ed`
**Deployment mode**
Docker on managed hosts.
## What Changed
- Pass `USER_UID=1001` and `USER_GID=1001` to the Cloud image build.
- Check the pushed digest's baked identity before the entrypoint can
repair it. Then check the normal entrypoint's effective identity and
writable home before publishing the verified full-SHA tag.
- Add a workflow regression and two entrypoint cases for a matching
Cloud identity, including a mismatched volume.
- Document the runtime identity and the first-build cache cost.
## Verification
- Focused workflow and artifact tests: 27 passed.
- Entrypoint tests: 11 passed. Actionlint passed. Full local `pnpm -r
typecheck` passed. Full local `pnpm build` passed. The manual [Cloud
image
build](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34575473213)
passed on the exact PR head. It checked Sentry, baked and effective
identity, writable home, orphan reaping, and full-SHA publication. The
new identity check took one second. All 30 PR checks passed; the
Storybook workflow was intentionally skipped. Greptile reviewed commit
`114d408f637a0b53e2e2b1339c263779b1e4ae54` at 5/5 with no findings or
open threads.
- The full local suite for the same application source was already run
in #13205. Its macOS general-server phase had 10,471 passes and 70
failures in seven unchanged files. Those failures included missing
Runner fixtures, filesystem errors, timeouts, a port conflict, and a
load-count mismatch. After configuring Cargo and rebuilding fixtures, 37
of 38 native tests passed; one unchanged native-resume assertion still
failed. Linux PR CI passed. This change adds entrypoint tests and does
not change application code.
## Risks
- The first build must rebuild layers that depend on the base image
identity. Later builds can reuse them.
- A future managed runtime identity change must update these build
arguments and checks together.
- The Dockerfile's self-hosted defaults remain 1000. Runtime overrides
and mounted-volume ownership repair remain supported.
- The observed startup delay supports this change, but fleet timing also
includes provider startup, image pull, canary order, and retries. No
fixed end-to-end gain is claimed before a live rollout.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and tool
use. The exact serving model ID 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 (focused workflow tests;
full-suite limitations are listed 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.
> - Cloud deployments require verified artifacts for the merged source
commit.
> - Cloud readiness and the npm release independently run the same
source checks.
> - Their shared chaos workflow used only the source ref as its
concurrency key.
> - One caller could cancel the other caller's required job for the same
commit.
> - This pull request scopes that key to the caller workflow and source
ref.
> - Both callers can finish their checks without blocking deployment
readiness.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13192 and #13205. Searched for related open issues and PRs; no
duplicate fix was found.
**What happened?**
The master push for `398d304e15739d1ee6105633bd8a0e42c929d33f` started
Cloud readiness and Release together. GitHub cancelled the Cloud
readiness chaos job before it acquired a runner. Its annotation reported
a higher-priority waiting request for the same concurrency group. The
required readiness gate cannot pass after that cancellation.
**Expected behavior**
Cloud readiness and Release must each finish source verification for the
same SHA. Standalone chaos evals must also have a separate group.
**Steps to reproduce**
Merge a commit to master while the npm release queue is empty. Both
callers reach the reusable chaos workflow with the same source SHA. See
[the cancelled
job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34569569760/job/103168603926).
**Paperclip version or commit**
`398d304e15739d1ee6105633bd8a0e42c929d33f`.
**Deployment mode**
GitHub Actions on master.
## What Changed
- Add the caller workflow name to the chaos workflow concurrency group.
Retain source isolation and cancellation of duplicate calls within the
same workflow.
- Add a regression test that evaluates the group for Cloud readiness,
Release, and standalone evals at the same source SHA.
- Document the concurrency boundary in the readiness runbook.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/preview-artifacts.test.mjs
scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` passed: 26 tests.
- The new regression test fails against the previous concurrency key and
passes with this fix.
- `actionlint -shellcheck= -pyflakes=
.github/workflows/runner-chaos-evals.yml
.github/workflows/release-verify.yml
.github/workflows/cloud-readiness.yml` passed.
- `git diff --check` passed.
- The full local typecheck passed for the same application source in
#13205. Its macOS general-server test phase had 10,471 passes and 70
failures in seven unchanged application test files: missing Cargo/Runner
test binaries, filesystem permissions, timeouts, a port conflict, and a
load-test count mismatch. Linux CI test checks passed. The full local
build passed with Cargo on PATH. This PR changes workflow configuration,
its test, and documentation only.
- All CI checks pass on the final head, including typecheck, tests,
browser suites, build, and canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 with no open
findings. After merge, verify both callers' chaos jobs complete for the
same master SHA and record the resulting readiness time.
## Risks
- Two callers may now run chaos tests at the same time. This uses two
existing GitHub runners, which is the intended cost of independent
verification.
- Renaming a caller changes its concurrency group. The fixed prefix
keeps this child group separate from caller-level concurrency groups.
- The readiness gate continues to require every verification
prerequisite. No gate is bypassed.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-6 / Codex, with reasoning, repository editing, and
command/API tools. Exact serving model ID and context-window size are
not exposed by 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 (26 focused
workflow/artifact tests)
- [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>
Verify source, build the cloud image, and wait for exact-source migrator packages concurrently. Emit Cloud deployable v1 only when every prerequisite succeeds for the merged full SHA.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Publish exact-source shared and database migrator packages for each master merge through the existing trusted Release workflow, independently of the full release and image build.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Build cloud images independently for each master commit through a reusable workflow. Preserve production release dependencies and image runtime checks, and write cloud registry caches per commit with bounded ancestor imports to prevent overlapping builds from replacing each other's cache.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Split release chat verification into three validated test-line shards and balance other server suites across five runners using the measured native Runner integration cost. Retire each chat case's fixtures after assertions, preserve complete test coverage, and exercise the real shard CLI in PR tests.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Publish the full-source-SHA cloud image tag only after the pushed digest passes runtime, revision, and platform checks. This makes verified images directly resolvable by Cloud.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Every master push publishes a canary through release.yml, gated by
release-verify.yml — the fleet's staging deploys and the
nightly/beta/stable chain all start from those canaries
> - release-verify splits the server test suite across three shards with
a 20-minute job cap, while pr-trusted splits the same suite across five
> - The server suite grew on 2026-09-10 and the three shards moved to
17-19 minutes; that evening every push-triggered canary run was
cancelled by the 20-minute cap mid-verify, and no canary published after
18:50 UTC
> - This pull request mirrors pr-trusted's five-way server split in
release-verify, putting shards back at the 10-15 minute range with real
headroom
> - The benefit is a canary lane that reports test verdicts instead of
dying on an infrastructure cap
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Push-triggered Release runs stopped publishing canaries on 2026-09-10.
Runs at 19:34, 22:30, and 22:37 UTC were all cancelled by "The job has
exceeded the maximum execution time of 20m0s" on a `verify_canary /
General tests (server (N/3))` shard. No canary published after 18:50
UTC, which also starves the staging fleet's continuous deploys.
**Expected behavior**
release-verify's server shards finish well inside the 20-minute cap and
runs conclude with a test verdict, as pr-trusted's five-way split of the
same suite does (10-15 minutes per shard).
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Compare server shard durations in the `verify_canary` job across
2026-09-10: 11-14 minutes in the morning, 17-19 minutes from 15:06 UTC,
over 20 minutes by evening.
2. Observe runs 34521169020, 34537798488, and 34538332689 cancelled at
the cap.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at `d1ba17eec` (current tip; its canary run was one of the
cancelled ones).
## What Changed
- `release-verify.yml`: the `general-server` matrix goes from three
shards to five, byte-for-byte the shape `pr-trusted.yml` already runs,
with a comment recording why.
## Verification
- The identical five-way split runs green on every pr-trusted run (10-15
minutes per shard today, including on PRs merged this evening).
- The suite's own growth (slower chat-connector tests) is being
addressed separately; this PR only removes the artificial cliff.
## Risks
- Low risk: two more runners per verify run; no test content changes. If
shard durations regress further, the cap fires again — which is the
correct signal once shards have honest headroom.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5),
extended thinking, tool use via Claude Code CLI.
## 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
- [ ] 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 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 open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - People also ask agents for work in their existing chat tools.
> - Each external conversation needs one task and a current authorized
source.
> - Retries, Stop, and provider failures must not duplicate work or
expose private data.
> - The first chat PR establishes the opt-in provider and data
contracts.
> - This PR adds experimental channel integration and its durable
control plane.
> - Users can request work from connected channels and inspect delivery
in Paperclip.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13100 and #13092. This is the second of exactly two chat PRs.
Foundation #13100 is merged and changed 143 files. Runner prerequisite
#13092 is also merged. This PR changes 400 files against master, below
the 500-file review limit. It contains no wireframe images or HTML
galleries.
## What Changed
- Add native Slack, GitHub, Microsoft Teams, Telegram, and Discord chat
connections. Keep chat disabled unless the operator enables experimental
chat connectors. Preserve the production GitHub tool connection and its
normal setup path.
- Bind each provider bot identity to one immutable Paperclip agent. Bind
each admitted external conversation to one task. Paperclip owns tasks,
runs, permissions, and audit records.
- Add durable admission, per-conversation queues, questions, task
controls, progress, final replies, images, files, and delivery receipts.
Board comments remain internal unless explicitly sent to the channel.
- Check current identity, provider reach, resource access, credentials,
runtime generation, and exact source before provider effects. Keep
private responses private. Never send raw reasoning, private logs,
credentials, or tool arguments.
- Hold uncertain sends for explicit audited resolution. Make Board
Send-to-channel atomic and idempotent. Keep reconnect and setup
credentials in Paperclip secret storage.
- Preserve current native-runner authority across retries, lost
acknowledgements, and recovery. Keep immutable input and completion
contracts separate from newer user input. Receipt reconciliation cannot
launch a provider.
- Reconcile chat close/new ordering and provider-effect lock order.
Audit resource access changes in the same transaction. Submit only the
selected resource from each UI toggle so stale pages cannot undo
unrelated access changes.
- Drain Codex stdout before certifying process exit. Bound the drain
with the existing shutdown grace. Preserve observed terminal authority
without treating an undrained process as successful or reusable.
- Incorporate master `018ca5da` with its ACP Stop, mobile task layout,
runner packaging, and official lock changes. Preserve dedicated
chat-answer continuations in both directions when ordinary queued
comments are adopted after Stop.
- Fence late adapter readiness behind an earlier Stop for the same run.
Preserve verified cleanup for registered adapters. Handle single Stop,
agent pause, duplicate Stops, and failure release without creating a
false cancellation receipt.
- Incorporate master's `6dd48cad4` wake-queue extraction. Preserve exact
failed-chat retry authorization and lineage, retired question-source
suppression, and the block on generic recovery that would discard the
admitted source. Fresh deferred input retains its separate promotion
path.
- Incorporate master `2a05b5ed3` and its queue-admission extraction,
simplified transaction ports, and separate runner CI job. Preserve exact
durable receipts, actor separation, and dedicated-answer isolation
through the new module. A failed receipt insert rolls back the
accompanying deferred-wake merge.
## Verification
Current head: `afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a`, incorporating
master `2a05b5ed3457ea33efd6895520447d1d97fe98d8`. The conflicts are
resolved. This successor fixes two test-harness boundaries exposed by
CI: per-case route-module preparation and actual durable-save completion
before intentional runner termination. Production code and all existing
test/turn deadlines are unchanged. [Exact-head Greptile
review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13038#issuecomment-5587250594)
is **5/5**, completed September 10 at 13:20:55 UTC, with no actionable
findings or open review threads. [Fresh exact-head
CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34481724341)
passes **all 24 jobs**, including Build and both required aggregates.
Normal exact-head guarded merge was attempted and rejected by the
remaining branch approval policy: CODEOWNER review is required and no
human approval is present. Normal **squash auto-merge is enabled** as of
September 10 at 13:36:26 UTC. Requested CODEOWNERS have been notified;
no approval bypass or self-approval was used. Earlier-head results below
remain historical evidence, not qualification of this successor.
- Final exact-head Linux evidence: 995/995 chat integration cases; 36/36
agent-skills routes; 35/35 runner live-session cases, including real
process kill/resume; 1948 runner Vitest cases with three existing
benchmark/platform guards; 870/870 API-authority cases; and 104 browser
cases with four existing optional skips. Rust, conformance/replay, full
repository build, typecheck, canary, all server/workspace shards, and
both required aggregates pass with normal CI concurrency. Earlier failed
attempts remain recorded below.
- Latest test-only qualification: 141/141
route/permissions/authentication cases pass in separate cold forks, with
plain server types and independent review clear. The real-runner suite
passes 35/35, with plain runner types and independent review clear. A
controlled premature-save acknowledgement fails as expected; matching
ownership/effect/process evidence, rejected saves, real turn outcome,
test abort, and pre-kill liveness are covered. No local reproduction of
the original CI scheduling failure is claimed. The preceding [CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34479680858)
passes 21/24 jobs, including all 995 Linux chat cases and browser
aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional skips); only Build, the
skills serialized shard, and the required verification aggregate fail.
Its exact-head Greptile review was 5/5. Both failed job logs are
retained.
- Final fixture qualification: all eight focused Discord cases and all
995 chat integration cases pass. The exact modal statement/PID is
observed before taking the real connection lock; the test then proves
its actual blocking relationship before mutation. Original SQL
execution, provider behavior, negative assertions, and 1s/15s timeouts
remain unchanged. Independent review is clear and test/production hashes
remain frozen. The preceding [CI
attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34477184777)
passed 22 jobs, including Build/runner, typecheck, canary, all other
test shards, and browser aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional
skips); the two fixture failures and failed verification aggregate
remain recorded, not relabeled as a pass.
- Current queue-module composition: 308/308 recovery/batching/queue/Stop
tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 89/89 module tests, including real
PostgreSQL receipt-insert rollback; 24/24 workflow/module-boundary
tests; plain server and UI types. All four actual local process/ACP
browser paths pass in 1.4 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries,
stable reviewed source hashes. The initial boundary failure is retained;
its no-op service wrapper was removed without changing recovery context
or weakening the check. An exploratory standalone test-directory
typecheck fails because its new upstream transformation config is not a
standalone typechecking project; standard CI/build does not invoke it,
and no configuration was weakened to suppress those diagnostics.
- The preceding head `e02a63d462ce5d47433b0aeb632bb6fd20aab1ba` passed
[all 24 CI
jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34436462958)
and exact-head Greptile review at 5/5. Required CODEOWNER review
prevented its normal merge before master advanced again.
- Final extracted-module composition: 307/307 recovery, batching, queue
and Stop-control tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 49/49 module
tests including eight PostgreSQL adapter cases; and 19/19 issue-update
tests. Plain server types pass. All four actual local process/ACP
browser paths pass in 1.3 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries
in these cohorts, frozen source hashes, and independent review clear.
- The preceding head `3e4e1c1c` passes [all PR CI
jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34415826820),
including Build and required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`. Both the
original Rust failure and the previously load-sensitive lineage fixture
pass with unchanged Linux concurrency. Master advanced afterward and
required this reconciliation.
- Final master composition: 448/448 focused UI tests, 186/186 adapter
tests, 24/24 queue/control tests, and 11/11 packaging tests. Plain UI,
server, shared, and adapter types pass. Token gates and diff checks
pass. Independent server and UI reviews are clear.
- Stop-registration regression: both real-service cases fail against
exact `a95` source and pass with the fix. The full corrected
recovery/control suite passes 265/265. Duplicate-owner and failed-Stop
controls also pass. Plain server types pass. The readiness barrier
prevents provider startup without adding an acknowledgment to an already
terminal run.
- Final qualification strengthens terminal-field equality and repeats
both affected cases successfully on a fresh database. All four actual
local process/ACP browser paths pass again in 1.3 minutes, without skips
or retries. The final screenshot shows Cancelled, a paused subtree,
retained input, and no error toast.
- Two new actual-service regressions fail before the merge fix. They
prove that queued-comment adoption could consume a dedicated chat answer
or add unrelated input to that answer. The fixed four-case cohort
passes, including ordinary upstream continuation and adapter Stop
controls. Full recovery passes 257/257. All four actual local
process/ACP Stop browser flows pass in 1.4 minutes, without skips or
retries, on a fresh database.
- The unchanged runner artifact was qualified with 171/171 transport
tests, 870/870 API-authority tests, conformance 1/1, and replay 11/11.
Six controlled reader tests prove the exit/drain repair. Its local
serial Rust workspace passed 546 top-level cases plus two invoked
helpers; the later passing Linux CI supplies default-concurrency
evidence.
- Prior exact-source full chat integration passes 995/995. Settings
regressions cover concurrent stale pages, 501 destinations, pending
state, rejected updates, and explicit retry. These deterministic tests
do not prove live provider behavior.
- Retained failed attempts and their causes are in the [qualification
log](afe19299d0/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-chat-queue-and-webhook-repair.md).
The first merge adapter run timed out while macOS slept for 290 seconds.
Its unchanged repeat passed with a temporary sleep guard. No assertion,
deadline, or CI gate was weakened.
Review commands include `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest
run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts` and `pnpm exec
playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. Database suites require fresh
disposable databases. See the [browser
runbook](afe19299d0/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-04-chat-adapters-browser-e2e-runbook.md)
for provider setup and separate live acceptance steps.
## Risks
- This remains experimental. Deterministic tests and bounded live
evidence do not establish every provider feature, tenant, permission
layout, or media shape. Teams work-tenant qualification is still open.
- Failed and uncertain provider effects remain visible and can require
operator action. A transport receipt does not prove recipient
visibility.
- Native controller and runner artifacts must remain compatible.
Preserve lease ownership, terminal authority, source binding, and
quarantine during future changes.
- Access and audit rows commit together, but activity notifications
remain best-effort. This is not a new durable event outbox.
- The PR operation does not deploy a live server, replace its runner, or
change provider permissions. Remaining live qualification is documented
in the [temporary
handoff](afe19299d0/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-open-qualification-followups.md).
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex assisted with implementation, tool execution, testing, and
review. The work records `gpt-6-astra` assistance. The environment does
not report a context-window size. No private reasoning traces are
included.
## 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.
> - Paperclip uses GitHub Actions to verify changes before release.
> - The Paperclip Runner has a separate verification boundary.
> - The build job currently runs this verification before the workspace
build.
> - This pull request moves runner verification into its own parallel
job.
> - The benefit is clearer CI results and less wait time for independent
work.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The trusted PR and release verification workflows run Paperclip Runner
verification inside the Build job.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting (GitHub Actions CI workflows).
**Current behavior**
The Build job runs `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner
check:all` before it builds the workspace. A runner verification failure
appears as a Build failure. The workspace build cannot run in parallel
with runner verification.
**Proposed behavior**
Each workflow has a `Verify Paperclip Runner` job with the same
checkout, dependency install, and command. The Build job only builds its
required outputs. Both jobs run after the same gate and policy jobs.
**Reason and benefit**
The runner command is an independent verification boundary. A dedicated
job gives it a clear status and allows it to run in parallel with Build.
**Breaking changes**
None. The same runner verification command still runs in both workflows.
## What Changed
- Added a dedicated `Verify Paperclip Runner` job to the trusted PR
workflow.
- Added a dedicated `Verify Paperclip Runner` job to the release
verification workflow.
- Kept the Build jobs independent and retained their existing build
commands.
- Updated the trusted-workflow policy test for the additional
dependency-install job.
## Verification
- Ran `git diff --check`.
- Ran `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`.
- Ran `pnpm exec prettier --check .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml
.github/workflows/release-verify.yml`.
- Confirmed both jobs retain their prior runner, dependency, and policy
prerequisites.
## Risks
Low risk. The runner verification job repeats the existing setup. It
adds one parallel GitHub Actions runner to each affected workflow.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, 128k context window, reasoning and tool-use
capabilities.
## 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 heartbeat service admits wake requests while an issue has an
active execution run.
> - That admission branch mixes wake policy, database reads, and
database writes in one service.
> - This structure makes the wake-queue boundary hard to test and
extend.
> - This pull request moves the admission policy and its database
adapter into the wake-queue module.
> - The result keeps heartbeat orchestration small and makes the
admission behavior testable in isolation.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The heartbeat service now delegates deferred wake admission to the
wake-queue module. The module keeps the existing merge, defer, and
ordinary-wake outcomes.
**Subsystem affected**
server/ — REST API and orchestration services.
**Current behavior**
The heartbeat service contains a 146-line branch that reads wake state,
chooses an outcome, and writes the result.
**Proposed behavior**
The wake-queue module owns the pure admission decision and the adapter
reads and writes. The heartbeat service calls one module method.
**Reason and benefit**
This boundary reduces service coupling and lets module tests cover the
admission policy. The change keeps the existing reason strings and
outcomes.
**Breaking changes**
None. The change preserves the current behavior and public API.
**Additional context**
This pull request follows [PR
#13132](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13132), which
merged the first slice of this refactor. I searched GitHub for duplicate
and related pull requests before opening this pull request.
## What Changed
- Move deferred wake admission policy into
`server/src/modules/wake-queue`.
- Add module ports and a PostgreSQL adapter for the admission reads and
writes.
- Keep the existing wake outcomes and stored reason strings.
- Extend the module boundary check to reject service imports from the
application layer.
- Add unit and adapter tests for the moved behavior.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/check-module-boundaries.test.mjs` passes.
- The `server/src/modules/wake-queue` suite passes 58 tests.
- The eight pinned heartbeat and queued-comment tests remain unchanged
and require CI verification.
- Every continuous-integration check must reach a terminal green state
before merge.
## Risks
The refactor changes the location of wake admission logic. A missed
adapter condition could change deferred wake behavior. The tests cover
the policy outcomes and the adapter writes. The residual tenant-scope
risk remains documented in the review record.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code execution. The implementation
author ran the tests and prepared the commit set.
## 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.
> - Task controls coordinate provider execution and queued user
messages.
> - Stop could finish before an embedded ACP provider stopped its tools.
> - A later request could be held for reconciliation without a clear
task response.
> - A restored provider could also retain the stopped run's API
credential.
> - This pull request verifies provider termination and preserves safe
session continuation.
> - Operators can continue known-safe work and see why uncertain work
cannot start.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Stop could leave an embedded ACP provider running. A queued follow-up
followed by “go” could fail before it reached the provider. Task chat
could show a generic missing-response message. Even a restored session
could use the previous run's credential and fail its task update.
**Expected behavior**
Stop waits for confirmed provider termination. A later explicit wake
continues the same compatible session only when recorded actions have
known outcomes. It carries pending comments and the current run's
environment. Uncertain actions retain a visible reconciliation hold.
Composer Stop preserves the existing pause rule: conversation can
continue while paused, but task work requires Resume.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start an embedded ACP task.
2. Send a second request while the provider is running.
3. Interrupt the run, then send “go”. Also test composer Stop followed
by Resume work.
4. Check that the request is delivered once and that the provider can
complete the task through the current run's API credential.
5. Repeat with an unfinished write. Confirm that the write stops and
that further execution stays blocked with a visible reason.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Built from source on master at `3bc60dd8b` plus this branch.
**Deployment mode**
Local source build with an isolated embedded PostgreSQL instance.
Refs #11183. Refs #12552. Those changes address recovery after operator
cancellation. This change also covers embedded ACP termination, session
proof, pending-comment delivery, and task feedback.
## What Changed
- Propagate Stop into embedded ACP and wait for bounded adapter cleanup
and provider exit. Retain the actual ChildProcess object for forced
termination on all platforms; never signal a recycled numeric PID.
- Preserve interrupted checkpoints only for acknowledged, local,
persistent sessions with settled reads or no tools. Keep writes,
incomplete actions, and forced termination blocked.
- Restore the same compatible provider session with the current run's
environment. Reject fresh-session fallback for an interrupted
checkpoint.
- Adopt pending comments on the next explicit wake. Stop alone does not
dispatch them.
- Share the execution-blocker rule across dispatch, Resume, and task
detail. Show Stopped or Couldn't start with the recorded reason. Resolve
the stopped agent for the run link, including reviewer runs.
- Keep execution reconciliation holds intact when generic recovery sees
queued comments or healthy child tasks.
- Add process, service, component, and browser regression coverage. Fix
disposable database cleanup and React test settling exposed by the full
suite.
## Verification
- Passed `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm
check:token-gates`.
- Passed all three `acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts` browser journeys.
They use an actual ACP child process and require task completion through
the agent API.
- Passed 165 adapter execution, operator-stop, and child-process control
tests, 17 queued-comment route tests, and 65 tests in the two adjusted
UI suites. Earlier focused recovery, heartbeat, and task-control tests
also passed.
- Manually used the browser to queue a request, Stop, send “go” while
paused, and Resume. The same session answered once and moved the task to
Done with the current run's credential.
- Manually interrupted an unfinished write. Its file size stayed fixed
for five seconds. “Go” showed the reconciliation reason and did not
start another provider prompt.
- Separate live Claude ACP smoke checks confirmed that Stop ended a
disposable local write and that a no-tool interruption could resume the
exact provider session. The browser fixture does not call Drive or
another external app.
- Passed all 5,615 UI tests and 3,090 other workspace tests. The CLI and
general server groups pass with targeted retries: two transient server
failures passed together on retry, and two embedded-database startup
failures passed after removing abandoned shared-memory segments from
this task's completed browser fixtures. All 144 serialized server suites
completed, with 2,189 tests passing after two transient HTTP socket
failures passed on retry.
- Passed all 135 heartbeat process/recovery tests, including a
deterministic regression that failed before the recovery-sweep fix.
- Passed 18 dispatch integration tests, including stopped-reviewer
links, company boundaries, and malformed run IDs.
- Greptile is 5/5 on `7dd170d83`, with zero unresolved review threads.
The security scan and all required CI gates pass for the same commit.
## Risks
- Safe continuation depends on complete tool reporting and a restorable
local provider session. Unknown outcomes remain blocked and require
reconciliation.
- Provider cleanup can take time. A timeout does not grant replay
permission.
- The change adds optional adapter context fields and an optional issue
projection. It does not change the database schema or require a
migration.
- Test cleanup truncates company data only in a disposable test
database.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6, running as Codex with repository tools, code execution,
and browser interaction. The runtime does not expose a more specific
model deployment ID or context-window size.
## 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 manages agents that must write work and report task
outcomes through its API.
> - Local adapters select an execution engine and its permission
settings.
> - A higher ACP Node requirement can make an unchanged installation
lose access to its default engine.
> - The adapter then silently selects CLI, which can change permissions
and block API access.
> - This pull request keeps the engine choice fixed and reports missing
prerequisites before work starts.
> - It also gives explicit Codex CLI runs usable defaults and keeps
managed services on a supported Node runtime.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12215. Related changes: #11792 raised the Node requirement; #13094
addressed separate runner networking behavior. This change fixes the
engine-selection and managed-launcher paths.
**What happened?**
An unchanged agent could switch from ACP to CLI after an upgrade. Codex
CLI then used read-only permissions with networking disabled. The run
could finish without updating its task. Repeated recovery attempts used
the same unavailable setup. Managed updates also skipped the Node check
and did not refresh old launchers.
**Expected behavior**
An unavailable engine must fail with a clear setup error. It must not
silently select another engine. Explicit CLI runs must be able to write
workspace files and call the API unless the operator configures stricter
settings. Managed updates must validate Node and keep child tools on
that runtime.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run an ACP-default agent under Node 22 after the ACP minimum rises to
24.11.
2. Leave the engine unset and disable the approval/sandbox bypass.
3. Observe the old adapter select CLI and fail to write task disposition
through the API.
4. Start a managed service with an old launcher and a supervisor PATH
that selects a different Node for child tools.
## What Changed
- Remove automatic engine fallback for Codex, Claude, Gemini, and Kimi.
Check prerequisites for default and explicit ACP selections.
- Return a configuration error with proof that provider work did not
start. Stop automatic continuation retries for this error.
- Enable Codex ACP workspace networking at the actual turn boundary.
Upstream mode presets otherwise force it off even when config.toml
enables it. Preserve explicit network denial and read-only mode.
- Set workspace-write and network access defaults for explicit Codex CLI
runs. Preserve explicit sandbox modes, profiles, and network
restrictions.
- Pin the validated Node directory in managed launcher PATH. Refresh
legacy launchers during installs and npm/Git updates.
- Reject updates on unsupported Node. Keep update checks, dry runs, and
rollback available.
- Synchronize the qualified Codex ACP executable identity across server,
TypeScript runner, Rust runner, and provider-pack launch paths.
- Add regression tests and update engine and installation documentation.
## Verification
- [Full CI passed on the final
head](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34387099695):
typecheck, build/native runner verification, all general and serialized
test shards, all browser shards, release registry, canary dry run, and
policy checks.
- Greptile: 5/5 on `2c1d6e2815830a5cd39e36c8a082cc0c4441b6c0`, with no
unresolved review findings. Security gates are green.
- Full workspace typecheck and build also passed locally. The final
deployed Linux build passed.
- Full Codex, Claude, Gemini, and Kimi source test suites: 804 passed, 2
skipped. Installer, updater, and launcher tests: 47 passed. Installed
ACP turn-boundary tests: 3 passed. ACP packaging tests: 14 passed.
Focused recovery classification tests also passed.
- Real Linux Codex CLI runs, both fresh and resumed, wrote a workspace
file and reached the control-plane health API with the new defaults.
- Explicit read-only and network-disabled control probes retained those
restrictions.
- A real ACP run on the final deployed Linux build wrote a file and
reached the control-plane API with HTTP 200, without engine fallback.
The same probe failed DNS before the turn-policy patch.
- Executable-identity and installed-policy contracts: 12 passed.
Affected native server tests: 197 passed. Runner factory tests: 21
passed. Rust qualification and native provider integration tests: 11
passed.
- Deployed the production changes to a Linux service on Node 24.20 after
a verified database backup. Health, bootstrap readiness, static UI,
executable/cwd identity, and guarded restart checks passed. The restart
lost no runs.
- Corrected stale Kimi skill-default and Gemini remote-archive fixtures;
both suites pass.
## Risks
- Default or legacy auto engine settings now fail when ACP is
unavailable. Operators who intend to use CLI must select it explicitly.
- Codex CLI now permits workspace writes and networking by default, and
ACP workspace-write turns permit networking by default. Explicit
operator sandbox settings remain authoritative.
- Old managed launchers keep their pinned Node until they are
reinstalled under a supported runtime. An old updater cannot repair
itself; the documentation gives the current installer command.
- Custom service wrappers and global/source installations must configure
their runtime PATH. No database migration is required.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection,
shell execution, and test tools. The exact serving model 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 runs agent work in isolated worktrees.
> - Each worktree needs dependencies that match its source and patches.
> - A failed install currently loses its exit status after an `if`
statement.
> - The provisioner can then record a successful dependency fingerprint.
> - This pull request preserves failures and bounds lockfile recovery.
> - Agents receive a usable workspace or an accurate provisioning
failure.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?** A nonzero pnpm install could return success and save
a fingerprint. Patch changes alone also did not invalidate the
fingerprint.
**Expected behavior:** Fail provisioning on an unsuccessful install.
Retry known frozen-lockfile mismatches once and record success only
after installation succeeds.
**Steps to reproduce:** Run the provisioner in a worktree with a pnpm
install that exits nonzero. The regression suite uses real shell
execution and a controlled pnpm fixture.
**Paperclip version or commit:** Reproduced on master before this
change. **Deployment mode:** Self-hosted. **Installation method:** Git
checkout. **Agent adapters involved:** Core workspace provisioning.
**Database mode:** Not relevant. **Access context:** Execution host.
**Node.js version:** 26.4.0 locally; supported minimum remains
unchanged. **Operating system:** macOS locally and Linux execution
hosts.
**Relevant logs or output:** `ERR_PNPM_LOCKFILE_CONFIG_MISMATCH`,
`ERR_PNPM_OUTDATED_LOCKFILE`, and ordinary installation failures.
**Additional context:** Related lockfile maintenance: #13061. No
lockfile or workflow changes are included.
## What Changed
- Capture the failed install status inside the `else` branch.
- Use the existing single retry for both frozen-lockfile mismatch
errors.
- Include patch contents in the dependency fingerprint.
- Add executable regression coverage and document the behavior.
## Verification
- All CI checks passed, including build, typecheck, tests, browser
suites, canary dry run, and security scans. Greptile: 5/5 with no
remaining findings.
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/provision-worktree-self-heal.test.mjs`:
19 passed; one existing test requires Linux flock and was skipped on
macOS.
- `bash -n scripts/provision-worktree.sh` and `git diff --check` passed.
- Full workspace typecheck and build passed in the companion runner-fix
worktree at the same base revision. This change only touches shell
provisioning, its tests, and documentation.
- CI and review are pending.
## Risks
The existing non-frozen recovery can update a worktree-local lockfile.
Committed lockfile updates remain bot-owned. Ordinary failures now
correctly stop provisioning and may expose previously hidden
installation problems.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with code editing, shell execution, tests,
and browser inspection. The exact model variant 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.
> - Agent adapters select a provider, a model, and a runtime.
> - Runner conversion rejected existing Claude agents. The model list
mixed providers.
> - The native Claude runner rejected custom models and could not launch
on macOS.
> - This pull request fixes conversion, model selection, and verified
macOS execution.
> - It also groups configuration fields consistently across adapters and
opens artifact images in the task gallery.
> - Operators can change an agent configuration and run the selected
model on their Mac.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Converting an existing Claude agent to Paperclip Runner failed with a
Codex-only restriction. ACPX Claude showed unrelated models and required
`claude-sonnet-5`. Its native runtime rejected macOS. Configuration
mixed common model settings with process controls. Artifact cards
labeled “Open gallery” navigated to attachment URLs instead of opening
the task gallery.
**Expected behavior**
Conversion keeps agent identity and compatible settings. ACPX Claude
uses the normal Claude catalog and accepts typed model IDs. Codex uses
the native runner. The verified Claude runtime can launch on macOS ARM64
and x64. Common configuration sections place the same fields together
across adapters. Artifact images open in the shared task gallery with
navigation and downloads.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open the configuration of an existing Claude agent.
2. Convert it to Paperclip Runner.
3. Select ACPX Claude and a different catalog model or a typed model ID.
4. Save the agent and run a disposable task on macOS.
5. Inspect configuration and advanced run-policy controls across
adapters.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The bugs were reproduced on `165ca56a22adb60e5fda56045442d9c8498116a8`.
This branch was rebased onto `7ed122911`.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source. Local test-drive instance on macOS ARM64 with an
isolated database.
Related work: #11798 addresses unsupported ACP session options in the
existing adapter path. #13048 addresses working-folder preservation.
This change fixes native runner configuration and launch behavior.
## What Changed
- Remove the Codex-only conversion restriction. Preserve agent identity,
instructions, directories, credentials, and compatible model settings.
Reset incompatible sessions while retaining history.
- Show ACPX Claude and native Codex as distinct provider choices. Remove
ACPX Codex from advertised configuration. Normalize legacy
configurations before fresh runs without rewriting historical run
descriptors.
- Select model catalogs and cache entries by provider. Support refresh
and typed model IDs. Pass exact Claude IDs through session creation,
model changes, and recovery.
- Add verified macOS ARM64 and x64 Claude SDK snapshots. Bound
executable allocation and total snapshot size. Preserve package checks,
dependency isolation, process ownership, cancellation, and Linux
descriptor loading.
- Probe local runtime readiness. Report remote platform checks as
incomplete until the remote runner verifies its runtime.
- Surface actual model rejection and allow correction and retry.
- Repair missing ACPX goal-capability helpers exposed by the post-rebase
live test. Persist and restore the optional capability without breaking
session startup.
- Put Agent identity first and intentionally remove the Capabilities
editor, as requested. This is removal of UI editing, not relocation:
preserve existing capability metadata and API compatibility without
adding another editor. Use the themed select for configurable permission
modes, with normal text instead of monospace.
- Put model and provider under Adapter. Give environment variables their
own section. Fold command and arguments under Configuration. Fold
lifecycle, timeout, and interrupt grace under Advanced Run Policy. Hide
single-option permission controls.
- Open image and video artifact cards in the existing task gallery,
including cards in the artifacts panel. Chat attachment images use the
same gallery. Preserve standalone media previews and download links.
## Verification
- Rebased focused UI/API/database suites: 293 tests passed.
- Rebased native runtime and ACPX suites: 242 passed, 7 skipped.
- Repository typecheck, build, and token gates passed for the runner
changes. Gallery follow-up UI typecheck, build, and token gates also
passed.
- Follow-up UI suites passed (86 tests), packaging checks passed (14
tests), and the final focused runtime suites passed (126 passed, 7
skipped).
- Linux container isolation and lifecycle fixtures passed before rebase
(57 passed, 2 skipped). Rust ACPX provider-session tests passed after
rebase (8 tests).
- Browser tests completed actual Claude and native Codex tasks on macOS
ARM64. They covered conversion, catalog refresh, a non-default catalog
model, a typed `haiku` ID, save/reload, cancel, follow-up session
continuity, invalid-model errors, and recovery.
- Final-revision live tests completed a typed Claude task, a follow-up
with the same provider session, and a native Codex task on macOS ARM64.
- Browser tests confirmed the moved interrupt-grace field saves and
survives reload. Cross-adapter tests cover Claude, Codex, Gemini,
process, gateway, and schema forms.
- Full local run: 7,080 passed, 30 skipped, and two timeouts. Both
timeout suites passed on isolated rerun (84 tests); the failures were
the plugin login-worker exit diagnostic and the runner real-server
vertical slice.
- Final follow-up checks: 50 registry tests and 45 snapshot/installation
tests passed (6 platform-specific skips). Oversized executable rejection
is covered before allocation or reading; unsupported-platform tests
invoke the real installation probe.
- Runner head `ddb5101c483a297f74875ab96b3c66035b002d50`: all CI gates
green, including full runner verification, repository build, typecheck,
general/serialized server suites, browser tests, and canary dry run. [CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34286178670).
- Greptile: 5/5 on that runner head. All four review threads resolved.
Superagent, Socket, and Snyk checks green.
- After snapshot hardening, another real Claude task completed on this
Mac using the rebuilt runtime.
- Gallery follow-up: 148 focused tests passed, covering artifact
selection, shared attachment collections, deduplication, image/video
cards, standalone previews, downloads, and closing. Live browser
verification completed on the settings follow-up: artifact selection,
6-image pagination with wrapping, download action, and closing all
stayed on the same task URL. All checks passed on gallery head
`96136da58ff195bf6ca00b281eb3022ad12d7bd8`: [CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34287987536).
Greptile returned 5/5 on that exact head with no unresolved threads.
- Final settings polish: 96 focused tests, UI typecheck/build, and token
gates passed. A real browser walkthrough verified readable permission
options, identity placement, Capabilities removal, and permission
save/reload. Original test-agent permission mode restored. All 31 checks
passed on final head `e46540d6bf32bfb0566dca16b2f4a75ba437618c`: [CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34292797886).
Greptile returned 5/5 with no unresolved threads.
## Risks
- Capabilities intentionally has no editable UI field after this change.
Existing values remain readable and API-compatible; removing the field
does not erase stored metadata.
- macOS launch now copies verified package files into private snapshots.
The implementation must retain isolation and clean up snapshots on exit.
- Runtime provider or model changes reset the current session.
Historical runs remain available.
- The macOS x64 SDK executable digest was verified, but a live Intel Mac
run was not available. Linux verification used container fixtures, not a
real Claude task.
- Remote environment tests report a warning when only the platform has
been checked. They do not claim package readiness from the server host.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The exact served model identifier and
context-window limit are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning,
repository inspection, code execution, Rust and TypeScript tests, and
browser automation.
## 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 (focused suites and both
timeout suites on rerun; full-run counts 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
> - Agents use connections to reach external services.
> - A fresh native task can have no service tools installed.
> - The agent needs a way to discover services and ask the responsible
person for access.
> - This pull request brings the existing connection-intent flow into
native task execution.
> - The person can connect from the task, and the agent can continue
with updated tools.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Native runner tool authority, connection intents, task interactions, and
shared connection setup.
**Problem or motivation**
A task that needs an unconnected service cannot finish its work. Leaving
the task to configure access also loses context. A resolved request must
survive a restart and resume the correct agent once.
**Proposed solution**
Expose connection discovery and access requests as server-owned native
tools. Render a durable task card and use the shared setup dialog.
Persist outcome delivery and start a fresh provider session after access
is ready.
**Alternatives considered**
Sending the person to the Connections page adds navigation and does not
solve continuation. Polling for authorization consumes runs and can
create duplicate requests.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the existing connection-intent runtime and setup
experience. It reuses the shared access model and the native runner.
Related: #12345, #12347. The service-slug fix in #12906 is related but
separate. Companion evaluation PR:
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/21.
## What Changed
- Expose `connections_search` and `connection_request` with server-bound
company, task, agent, and responsible user. Preserve the legacy entry
points.
- Discover catalog services and authorized custom connections. Check
installation, identity, health, and executable permissions before
reporting ready.
- Keep pending cards through ordinary messages. Reuse requests and
retire stale ownership. Put Connect at the right of Not now.
- Reuse the shared setup flow in a task dialog. Keep access additive and
default to the requesting agent. Recover from cancelled or blocked OAuth
windows with a new-tab fallback.
- Persist outcome delivery with an idempotent wake key. Resume in a
fresh session and recheck ownership before dispatch.
- Add native browser fixtures, offline Storybook states, server
contracts, and evaluation fixtures. Update guidance and documentation.
## Verification
- `pnpm build`: passed after replaying the change on current master.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook`: passed.
- New continuation-policy regression cases: 16 passed.
- Docker-backed PostgreSQL regressions passed for requester-only OAuth
access, assignment-only expiry, terminal expiry, and credential-free
setup metadata.
- Shared setup and task-card UI tests: 121 passed, including configured
MCP reconnect URL recovery and preserving user edits across refetch.
- Storybook browser checks: all 119 passed on the latest reconnect fix.
- `pnpm test:run`: 4,734 tests passed in the first server group, but
embedded PostgreSQL startup failures and resulting cleanup errors
prevented a complete local pass. All Linux CI lanes passed on the latest
reviewed commit. One external-object route test returned an unexplained
500 on the first run; it passed twice locally and the failed shard
passed on retry without code changes.
- Earlier feature-checkout evidence: three deterministic native browser
journeys passed, including restart delivery and an actual fixture tool
result. Legacy scripted coverage also passed. All 59 added stories were
inspected in light and dark themes.
- Live Notion testing recorded successful provider reads. The manual
test used a local-trusted instance. It does not prove
authenticated/cloud deployment or every provider journey.
- Native browser rerun reached the embedded PostgreSQL startup limit
before bootstrap, so the latest checkout’s full native browser journey
remains unverified. Both OAuth page/task regression cases passed against
isolated Docker-backed PostgreSQL 17. They verify no premature task
access, requester-only completion, additive retries, and reconnect
preservation.
- Applied both new migrations twice to isolated PostgreSQL 17. Foreign
keys remained intact, duplicate active delivery keys were rejected, and
failed delivery records did not block retries.
Reviewer path: start a fresh test drive, enable the native runner, use
an agent that can perform work directly, and ask it to summarize a
Notion page. Connect from the card, then verify the resumed provider
call and source-linked answer. The default test-drive CEO is instructed
to delegate, so it can introduce an unrelated hiring step.
## Risks
- Two additive migrations create durable deliveries and a partial unique
wake index. They are idempotent. The wake index can require a
maintenance window on large tables because migrations run in a
transaction.
- OAuth and continuation cross asynchronous boundaries. Tests cover
ownership changes, retries, additive access, and restart delivery; live
provider behavior still varies.
- The latest requester-scope fix has not yet been exercised through live
OAuth. GitHub, API-key, authenticated-user, and all recovery journeys
are not claimed as verified.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6-based Codex assisted with implementation, tests, and review
using tools and code execution. The runtime does not expose the exact
model version, context window, or reasoning setting. Live evaluation
used `gpt-5.6-luna`; manual native testing used `gpt-5.6-sol`.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used and disclosed unavailable runtime
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this extends existing
connection 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 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
ticket id
- [ ] I have run all required tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation
- [x] I have considered and documented risks
- [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 server heartbeat service dispatches scheduled retries and queued
runs.
> - The service kept policy decisions and database writes in one large
file.
> - This layout made policy branches harder to test and transaction
boundaries harder to inspect.
> - This pull request moves the policy rules and database transactions
into a run-dispatch module.
> - The benefit is a smaller service, pure policy tests, and clear
transaction ownership.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The server heartbeat service promotes scheduled retries and cancels
stale queued runs.
**Subsystem affected**
server/ — REST API and orchestration services.
**Current behavior**
The heartbeat service contains the policy rules and the database writes
for these dispatch paths.
**Proposed behavior**
A run-dispatch module owns pure policy functions and semantic database
transactions. The public service contracts stay unchanged.
**Reason and benefit**
The new layout separates branch rules from database effects. It makes
each policy branch easier to test and keeps each operation’s row writes
in one transaction.
**Breaking changes**
None. The public service contracts stay unchanged.
## What Changed
- Move scheduled-retry promotion and queued-run staleness rules into
pure functions.
- Add table-driven unit tests for each policy branch.
- Move promotion and cancellation writes into semantic transactions.
- Keep row locking, company isolation, and post-commit effects
unchanged.
## Verification
- `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passes.
- `tsc --noEmit` from `server/` reports no errors.
- The focused server test command passes 228 tests in six files.
- Full pull request CI passes.
- Greptile reports 5/5, and all review threads are resolved.
## Risks
The main risk concerns changed transaction boundaries in scheduled-retry
promotion and queued-run cancellation. The focused tests retain coverage
for locking, transactionality, company isolation, and transport
contracts. The public service contracts do not change.
## Model Used
Codex, GPT-5, with code execution and tool use. The context window is
not provided by the runtime.
## 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 have addressed all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages AI agents and prepares their runtime inputs before
each turn.
> - Shared company skills are part of those inputs for native and legacy
adapters.
> - Runtime materialization refreshed the full inventory again for every
declared file.
> - Remote skill directories were also downloaded and rebuilt on every
turn.
> - Measured preparation took 42–73 seconds while runner execution took
7–9 seconds.
> - This change reads the inventory once and reuses validated installed
revisions.
> - Agents retain their selected skills while repeated preparation
avoids upstream work.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
One 114-skill preparation performed 407 inventory refreshes, 48
directory rebuilds, and 388 GitHub file fetches. Reusing existing local
copies took 151 ms.
**Expected behavior**
Each listing refreshes inventory once. Unchanged installed remote
revisions reuse complete, validated local copies. Local edits remain
visible. Explicit updates select new revisions.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Import GitHub skills with supporting files.
2. Run an agent turn, then run another with the same installed
revisions.
3. Observe repeated inventory scans, downloads, and runtime directory
replacement before execution.
Related prior attempts: #2330 and #9268 (still open; #9268 last updated
July 9). Those use a marker compared with `updatedAt`. This patch
follows the required content validation, immutable revision, company
isolation, atomic publication, and read-only semantics, and removes
refresh-per-file multiplication.
## What Changed
- Split public file reading from reading an already loaded skill.
Runtime listing refreshes inventory once.
- Add a company-scoped revision cache with file manifests outside the
delivered skill directory. Fingerprints omit cosmetic metadata.
- Validate exact file inventory, sizes, and hashes before warm reuse.
Reject traversal and symlinks. Stage complete builds and serialize
atomic publication across processes.
- Preserve local/catalog direct sources, stored Markdown fallback,
explicit version snapshots, and legacy mutable-ref compatibility. Report
missing supporting files and keep older valid revisions readable.
- Clean both runtime layouts on rename/removal and record
`skills.prepare` under preparation timing.
- Add service/cache regressions and an isolated 114-skill benchmark,
including a new-process warm run.
## Verification
- Final targeted skill-service/cache/trace validation: 86 tests pass (61
embedded-PostgreSQL service tests, 19 cache tests, 6 trace tests).
Database tests executed rather than skipped. Focused skill routes,
adapter selection, and native runtime context also pass.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass locally at `22caa1fe4`.
- The full `pnpm test:run` matrix passes on supported Linux CI at the
final head: [CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34236097762).
Local full-suite execution encountered PostgreSQL startup contention, a
random allocated-port boundary, and a socket hang-up; every affected
suite passed on an isolated rerun. The interrupted local serialized run
is not claimed as a complete local pass.
- Repeatable benchmark: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx
../scripts/benchmark-skill-preparation.ts`. Mixed 114-skill inventory
with 429 remote files on Linux: cold 286 ms, warm median 96 ms / maximum
153 ms including a new process. Every warm sample performs one refresh,
zero upstream fetches/rebuilds, and reports no missing entries; content
assertions pass.
- Controlled deployment against the previously deployed revision
completed with zero lost runs. Real inventory: 114 skills, 670 declared
files; 402 cached files match the prior installed copies byte-for-byte.
Ten post-deployment warm preparations: median 129 ms / maximum 208 ms;
new-process warm 194 ms, zero downloads/rebuilds/missing entries.
- Five sequential real browser questions persisted in 10.6–20.7 s
(median 12.2 s), versus 50–83 s before. Skill preparation median 240 ms,
with one 2.37 s outlier. Total preparation median 3.337 s / maximum
8.728 s **does not fully meet** the <3 s / <5 s target. The excluded
historical-run redaction query takes about 1.36 s per scan at two
preparation call sites; wider application latency coincided with the
outlier, without a cache rebuild. These residuals are reported rather
than discarded.
- Disposable skill reimport verified through actual selected-skill runs:
the next run read the changed code. Fixture removed and agent
configuration verified unchanged.
- Greptile 5/5, zero unresolved review threads, all final-head CI checks
green.
## Risks
- Cold preparation still requires upstream availability for supporting
files. An unavailable revision is reported missing and never falls back
to an older revision.
- Valid older revisions and quarantined invalid entries consume additive
disk space until skill cleanup. An abruptly killed publisher can leave a
lock that requires operator cleanup after confirming its PID is dead.
- Warm validation reads all cached file bytes. Very large inventories
still have proportional local I/O cost.
- No HTTP API, schema, agent configuration, or first-party Telemetry
changes. OpenTelemetry retains its operator endpoint gate.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code
editing, and test execution. The exact serving snapshot 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 (targeted and isolated
reruns; full Linux CI matrix passes, local full-run caveats 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 manages AI agents and their work.
> - Managed deployments need a cloud image and a database migration
package.
> - Branch commits can lack both artifacts until a normal release runs.
> - Operators need to test an exact commit without advancing release
aliases.
> - This pull request adds a preview build mode to the existing release
workflow.
> - Builds use an immutable source SHA and publish isolated, reusable
artifacts.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Release automation, cloud Docker images, and shared/database npm
packages.
**Problem or motivation**
An operator cannot deploy an unpublished branch with new migrations
using only
the normal release artifacts. Publishing it through a normal lane would
also
advance shared release aliases.
**Proposed solution**
Dispatch the trusted release workflow on master with a full source SHA
and a
request UUID. Build missing SHA images and, when needed, deterministic
preview
shared/DB packages. Publish packages under the preview dist-tag with
exact
workspace pins. Reuse matching artifacts on retries.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends release tooling for operator validation. It does not add a
core
product feature or duplicate a planned product capability. Related PR
searches
found no duplicate preview deployment workflow.
## What Changed
- Add the preview channel, request correlation, artifact checks, and
result artifact.
- Compile source packages in a separate job from the npm publisher. The
publisher
uses trusted master code and disables package lifecycle scripts.
- Publish only SHA cloud image tags. Preserve release aliases. Use
full-SHA tags and no shared build cache.
- Verify full source identity for reused packages and images. Both image
and npm publishers
use isolated jobs and the externally master-restricted npm-canary
environment. Fail on registry
authentication errors, outages, or artifact identity mismatches.
- Let bundled-package preparation use patches from the requested source
checkout.
- Document publishing configuration, artifact contracts, and deployment
order.
## Verification
- Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`.
- Passed `pnpm test:release-registry`: 107 tests, including eight
preview tests.
- Passed `actionlint -shellcheck= .github/workflows/release.yml`.
- Built real shared and DB preview tarballs from an isolated exact-SHA
checkout.
Verified package source identity and all 244 SQL files and journal
entries.
- Verified the full revision behind an existing published SHA cloud
image.
- `pnpm test:run` exposed missing local embedded PostgreSQL library
symlinks.
The package's postinstall repair restored initdb; all 12 previously
affected
suites passed on rerun (95 tests). Additional local matrix reruns are in
progress.
The complete PR CI matrix is green, including general/serialized tests,
e2e,
typecheck, build, release registry, canary dry run, and the required
verify gate.
- Live preview publication and staging deployment require this workflow
on master
and the compatible control-plane backend. They have not run yet. No
production
deployment was performed.
## Risks
Preview npm versions are immutable public artifacts. Both packages must
retain
their trusted publisher for release.yml in environment npm-canary.
Source builds
must remain separated from privileged npm publishing. The deploying
control plane
must verify source identity, integrity, and migration compatibility
before use.
Normal release jobs retain their existing conditions. Roll back by
stopping preview
dispatches and reverting the workflow/tooling. Published preview
versions remain
isolated from normal release tags.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository tools, code execution, and
test runs.
The session does not expose a more specific model version or
context-window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with the available 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
- [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the feature template
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local issues or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket identifier
- [ ] I have run the full tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added tests for the new behavior
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation
- [x] I have considered and documented risks
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open recommendations or follow-ups
- [x] I will address review comments before requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Preserve migration SQL hashes when renumbering and keep sandbox HOME with managed GitHub shell profiles.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Record checkpoint intent before mutations and permit CI-owned lock resolution when building a staging migrator.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Dotta
Dotta
Devin Foley
Nicky Leach