## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip Runner is an experimental execution adapter.
> - The adapter and its required sandbox ingress had separate settings.
> - A user could enable one setting and still have an unusable runner
configuration.
> - The runtime already makes one durable native or legacy decision for
each run.
> - This pull request uses that runtime decision for ingress
authorization.
> - The benefit is one clear opt-in with safe recovery for existing
native runs.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves the experimental settings and transport authorization for
Paperclip Runner.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting. This change affects the React settings UI, shared
settings contracts, adapter utilities, and server runtime selection.
**Current behavior**
Settings shows separate Paperclip Runner and Runner Preview Ingress
controls. A user can enable the runner but leave required sandbox
ingress disabled.
**Proposed behavior**
Settings shows only Paperclip Runner. Its native runtime decision also
authorizes provider WebSocket ingress when the execution target requires
it. A persisted native run keeps its recovery transport after the
setting is disabled.
**Reason and benefit**
Paperclip Runner is one experimental capability. One opt-in removes an
invalid partial configuration and makes the rollout boundary easier to
understand.
**Breaking changes**
The Runner Preview Ingress card is removed. The old
`enableRunnerPreviewIngress` key remains accepted in stored settings and
managed configuration, but it has no server runtime effect. The public
adapter-utils input remains compatible through a deprecated alias.
**Additional context**
Refs: #12638, #12641, #12656.
## What Changed
- Removed the separate Runner Preview Ingress card from Experimental
Settings.
- Made resolved native runtime selection authorize required provider
ingress.
- Preserved ingress recovery for persisted native runs after the rollout
flag is disabled.
- Kept the old settings key and adapter-utils input as deprecated
compatibility contracts.
- Added focused UI, runtime policy, transport, stored-settings, and
managed-config regression tests.
- Updated deployment documentation and feature descriptions.
## Verification
- GitHub Actions will run typecheck, tests, build, policy, and browser
shards.
- Focused tests cover the single settings control, runtime
authorization, fail-closed transport selection, the deprecated public
input, and old managed configuration.
- No local tests were run, per the maintainer request to use GitHub
Actions for verification.
- `git diff --check` passes.
## Risks
Low to moderate risk. The effective ingress gate changes from a separate
stored flag to the resolved native run decision. Fresh runs still
require `enableNativeRunner`. Persisted native runs remain recoverable.
Legacy adapters never receive ingress authorization.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (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
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip Runner gives native runs a durable and governed execution
path.
> - The current native path runs on the control-plane host.
> - Remote environments need an authenticated execution-target contract.
> - The contract must not change direct adapters or enable new runtimes
by default.
> - This pull request adds the remote execution substrate and Daytona
ingress.
> - The benefit is a bounded base for later remote runner transport
work.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12616.
Refs #12352.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting. This change touches runner transport, server
orchestration, plugin contracts, and shared settings.
**Problem or motivation**
Native execution cannot resolve an authenticated runner ingress through
a remote environment. The server also lacks one provider-neutral
contract for remote execution targets.
**Proposed solution**
Add a default-off runner preview ingress capability. Add
transport-neutral runner connectivity. Add remote execution target and
lifecycle handling. Add a Daytona ingress implementation with redacted
credentials.
**Alternatives considered**
A provider-specific server path would duplicate orchestration and
authorization. A public endpoint without an environment contract would
weaken the trust boundary.
**Roadmap alignment**
This work supports the Cloud and Sandbox agents milestone. It also
supports self-healing runs and governed tool access.
## What Changed
- Added execution-target traits for local, SSH, and sandbox
environments.
- Added plugin RPC contracts for runner ingress endpoints.
- Added authenticated Daytona preview ingress.
- Added transport-neutral PRP outbound connections.
- Added remote runner artifact verification and fail-closed provider
selection.
- Added bounded native session resume, cancellation, and lifecycle
recovery.
- Preserved Codex-only selection for fresh experimental runner starts.
- Preserved all direct adapter execution and finalization paths.
- Removed stale Pi provider-pack requirements that security review
rejected.
- Kept the rollout controls off by default.
- Did not change pnpm-lock.yaml, Cargo, database migrations, or GitHub
workflows.
## Verification
- GitHub Actions will run the repository test, typecheck, build,
security, and policy gates.
- Focused tests cover ingress validation, redaction, execution targets,
remote lifecycle, cancellation, resume, and legacy adapter selection.
- Local tests were not run. The requested verification policy uses
GitHub Actions for this series.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passes.
- The diff contains 52 files.
## Risks
- Remote execution crosses a trust boundary.
- The implementation validates target capabilities, artifact digests,
provider-pack pins, and connection metadata.
- The feature remains default-off.
- Fresh native selection remains Codex-only.
- Existing direct adapters remain on the legacy path.
- This PR does not yet make remote Codex runnable. The next PR adds the
Rust WSS and TLS transport.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6. The work used high-reasoning agent mode,
repository tools, GitHub tools, and parallel code-audit agents.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with Fixes: / Closes /
Refs OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue
template
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Dotta