## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - PR checks share a repository cache budget with post-merge cloud
verification.
> - Per-PR dependency store copies consume about 700 MB each and
displace useful build caches.
> - The reviewed workflow now restores shared dependency caches without
saving PR copies.
> - The public entry point must pin an approved immutable workflow
before it can use AWS runners.
> - This PR activates the merged workflow after the runner group
accepted its exact SHA.
> - Native verification and the app build also run in parallel, as
defined in the merged workflow.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13300. Refs #13301.
The cache definition is merged, and its exact SHA is authorized in the
restricted runner group. This PR activates it. Its base also contains
the two synthetic fixture fixes from #13301. No duplicate activation PR
was found.
## What Changed
- Advance the `pr-trusted.yml` pin from
`03609aa6ecc9a047ed53d6b6469d8be554fbc46d` to merged commit
`44dde2dec42a22746a2f36b595acacc9ccfa1df6`.
- Update the adjacent pin comment to identify #13300 and the activated
behavior.
- Activate restore-only pnpm caching and removal of redundant Node setup
steps from #13300.
- Activate the already-merged separate native verification job, required
by the aggregate `verify` check. The app build no longer waits for
native verification inside the same job.
- Activate the merged module-boundary and source-verification checks and
explicit Runner Evalbook viewer build.
## Verification
- Passed all 505 workflow, routing, cache, sharding, and
source-verification tests.
- Passed `actionlint` for both workflow files and `git diff --check`.
- Passed the runner infrastructure's workflow routing regression tests.
- Confirmed that the gate is unchanged between the old and new workflow
definitions. The restricted runner group permits the exact merged SHA
and retains its existing workflow pins.
- Full workspace typecheck and build passed on the timeout-fix branch.
Its 107 targeted runner tests and all Linux CI groups passed. The broad
local Mac test command had 15 unrelated permission and
missing-skill-path failures, documented in #13301; it stopped before
later groups.
- [Current-head CI run
34662664879](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34662664879)
passed. All 33 checks are green or intentionally skipped at
`ded4f1d093644b9279cdf56457f69a196fcf8cc2`. Greptile is 5/5, with no
unresolved findings.
- The live build restored the master pnpm cache, downloaded the resolved
lockfile artifact, and completed a frozen install. It had no
dependency-cache upload step. GitHub reports zero cache entries for this
PR. Native verification and the app build started together and both
passed.
- [Post-merge cloud readiness for
#13301](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34662389233)
passed all 30 jobs in 12m42s from merge. Native verification restored
the master Rust cache and passed the formerly failing fixtures.
## Risks
A new PR-only dependency can require a download until a master cache
contains it. The new pin also activates the merged workflow changes
listed above, so the live PR must pass all checks. The repository
storage cap is still 10 GB; this PR does not increase it. No allowlist
or runner permission logic changes.
## 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.
> - Pull request CI runs through `pr.yml`, which pins the reusable
`pr-trusted.yml` workflow by commit SHA, so `pr-trusted.yml` changes
take effect only when the pin moves.
> - PRs #12855 and #12858 added the `docker_context_integrity` job and
wired it into the `verify` aggregate, but the pin still points at a
commit from before them.
> - Until the pin moves, a pull request that strips a committed Docker
build input still merges green and breaks every post-merge image build.
> - This pull request bumps the pin to the #12858 merge commit, the
standard second step of every `pr-trusted.yml` change.
> - The benefit is that the Docker context integrity gate now blocks
merges, which closes out the 2026-09-04 image-publishing incident end to
end.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12855 and #12858 (the gate this activates) and #12769 (the
incident that motivated it).
**What happened?**
The `docker_context_integrity` job exists on master but does not run on
pull requests, because `pr.yml` pins `pr-trusted.yml` at `a0a78ee6`,
which predates it.
**Expected behavior**
Pull requests run the gate, and the `verify` required check fails when a
change strips a committed Docker build input.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open any pull request before this change: the ci run shows no "Docker
context integrity" job.
2. After this change, the job runs on every full-CI pull request and
`verify` requires its result.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Pin moves from `a0a78ee60946a5f79f85b2bd0584fc766fae43bb` to `03609aa6`
(the #12858 merge commit).
**Deployment mode**
GitHub Actions pull request CI.
## What Changed
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml`: the `pr-trusted.yml` pin moves to the
#12858 merge commit. One line.
## Verification
- The pinned commit is master's current tip and contains the job, the
`verify` wiring, and both probe revisions; its own CI (on #12855 and
#12858) is fully green.
- This PR's ci run itself executes the newly pinned workflow, so the
gate's first live run is visible on this very pull request.
## Risks
- Low. Identical mechanism to every previous pin bump. If the new lane
misbehaves on some runner, reverting this one line restores the previous
pin.
> 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
Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, model id `claude-fable-5`), extended
thinking, agentic tool use in Claude Code.
## 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 (one-line pin bump; the
pinned workflow's tests ran green on #12855/#12858)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (covered by the pin
tests updated in #12855)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (not
applicable to a pin bump)
- [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 validates every change through an immutable reusable PR
workflow.
> - That caller still pinned a revision that ran pnpm setup before Node
setup.
> - The implementation fix in #12808 is therefore present on master but
inactive for ordinary PR CI.
> - Advancing the immutable caller pin activates the already tested
Node-first workflow.
> - A focused contract prevents the caller from silently returning to
the old revision.
> - The benefit is a faster PR feedback loop without changing product
code or secret boundaries.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12808
## What Changed
- Pin ordinary PR CI to trusted workflow revision
`a0a78ee60946a5f79f85b2bd0584fc766fae43bb`.
- Assert that the reusable workflow call is canonical, unique, and
SHA-pinned to that audited revision.
## Verification
- Focused workflow security test: 8/8.
- Prettier passed.
- Actionlint passed.
- `git diff --check` passed.
## Risks
Low risk. The change only advances an immutable reusable-workflow pin to
a revision whose full ordinary CI and security checks passed. Product
code and credentials are unchanged.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex GPT-5 with agentic reasoning and repository tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used
- [x] I have linked the related public PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal issue links
- [x] My branch name describes the change
- [x] I have run focused tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have considered and documented risks
Bumps
[paperclipai/paperclip/.github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip)
from 39b8ee2960 to
f038633bf5.
<details>
<summary>Changelog</summary>
<p><em>Sourced from <a
href="https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/master/doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md">paperclipai/paperclip/.github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml's
changelog</a>.</em></p>
<blockquote>
<h1>Release Automation Setup</h1>
<p>This document covers the GitHub and npm setup required for the
current Paperclip release model:</p>
<ul>
<li>automatic canaries from <code>master</code></li>
<li>manual stable promotion from a chosen source ref</li>
<li>npm trusted publishing via GitHub OIDC</li>
<li>protected release infrastructure in a public repository</li>
</ul>
<p>Repo-side files that depend on this setup:</p>
<ul>
<li><code>.github/workflows/release.yml</code></li>
<li><code>.github/CODEOWNERS</code></li>
</ul>
<p>Note:</p>
<ul>
<li>the release workflows intentionally use <code>pnpm install
--no-frozen-lockfile</code></li>
<li>this matches the repo's current policy where
<code>pnpm-lock.yaml</code> is refreshed by GitHub automation after
manifest changes land on <code>master</code></li>
<li>the publish jobs then restore <code>pnpm-lock.yaml</code> before
running <code>scripts/release.sh</code>, so the release script still
sees a clean worktree</li>
</ul>
<h2>1. Merge the Repo Changes First</h2>
<p>Before touching GitHub or npm settings, merge the release automation
code so the referenced workflow filenames already exist on the default
branch.</p>
<p>Required files:</p>
<ul>
<li><code>.github/workflows/release.yml</code></li>
<li><code>.github/CODEOWNERS</code></li>
</ul>
<h2>2. Configure npm Trusted Publishing</h2>
<p>Do this for every public package that Paperclip publishes.</p>
<p>At minimum that includes:</p>
<ul>
<li><code>paperclipai</code></li>
<li><code>@paperclipai/server</code></li>
<li><code>@paperclipai/ui</code></li>
<li>public packages under <code>packages/</code></li>
</ul>
<h3>2.1. In npm, open each package settings page</h3>
<p>For each package:</p>
<ol>
<li>open npm as an owner of the package</li>
<li>go to the package settings / publishing access area</li>
<li>add a trusted publisher for the GitHub repository
<code>paperclipai/paperclip</code></li>
</ol>
<h3>2.2. Add one trusted publisher entry per package</h3>
<!-- raw HTML omitted -->
</blockquote>
<p>... (truncated)</p>
</details>
<details>
<summary>Commits</summary>
<ul>
<li><a
href="f038633bf5"><code>f038633</code></a>
feat(runner): reduce ACPX provider state (<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/12417">#12417</a>)</li>
<li><a
href="7bb6cebeae"><code>7bb6ceb</code></a>
feat(runner): normalize ACPX provider events (<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/12416">#12416</a>)</li>
<li><a
href="fe2ddfad2b"><code>fe2ddfa</code></a>
feat(runner): validate ACPX event payloads (<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/12415">#12415</a>)</li>
<li><a
href="3db24d9366"><code>3db24d9</code></a>
feat(runner): bind ACPX event scope (<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/12414">#12414</a>)</li>
<li><a
href="75708fec6d"><code>75708fe</code></a>
feat(runner): add ACPX sidecar transport (<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/12412">#12412</a>)</li>
<li><a
href="9ad8dbffa0"><code>9ad8dbf</code></a>
feat(runner): add Codex ACPX sidecar (<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/12410">#12410</a>)</li>
<li><a
href="b93ad538b6"><code>b93ad53</code></a>
test(runner): add question adapter conformance (<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/12409">#12409</a>)</li>
<li><a
href="4fe3189f02"><code>4fe3189</code></a>
feat(runner): bridge Codex ACPX questions (<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/12408">#12408</a>)</li>
<li><a
href="96421b0663"><code>96421b0</code></a>
feat(runner): recover settled Codex ACPX sessions (<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/12407">#12407</a>)</li>
<li><a
href="30ef14edd4"><code>30ef14e</code></a>
feat(runner): wire the Codex ACPX backend (<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/12406">#12406</a>)</li>
<li>Additional commits viewable in <a
href="39b8ee2960...f038633bf5">compare
view</a></li>
</ul>
</details>
<br />
Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't
alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting
`@dependabot rebase`.
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-start)
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-end)
---
<details>
<summary>Dependabot commands and options</summary>
<br />
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:
- `@dependabot rebase` will rebase this PR
- `@dependabot recreate` will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits
that have been made to it
- `@dependabot show <dependency name> ignore conditions` will show all
of the ignore conditions of the specified dependency
- `@dependabot ignore this major version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this minor version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this dependency` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the
PR or upgrade to it yourself)
</details>
Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses GitHub Actions to verify pull requests before merge.
> - The pull request workflow calls a trusted reusable workflow at an
immutable commit SHA.
> - Pull request #12507 added stack-aware CI scope to that reusable
workflow.
> - The caller still points to the prior workflow commit, so the new
behavior is not active.
> - This pull request advances the caller to the merged commit from pull
request #12507.
> - The benefit is that native stack middle layers stop starting
redundant full CI matrices.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12507
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The pull request workflow still calls the trusted CI definition that
predates stack-aware scope selection.
**Subsystem affected**
GitHub Actions pull request verification.
**Current behavior**
Every pull request layer in a native stack starts the complete test,
build, canary, and E2E matrix.
**Proposed behavior**
Call the trusted workflow from merged master commit
`39b8ee2960541d14b380f95365deecba6723d9bd`. That workflow runs full CI
for ordinary, top, and lowest-unmerged pull requests. It keeps policy
and required aggregate checks on middle layers.
**Reason and benefit**
This completes the two-step immutable workflow rollout from pull request
#12507. Large stacks will use fewer runners and will spend less time
waiting for duplicate jobs.
**Breaking changes**
Middle native stack layers no longer run the complete CI matrix.
Required aggregate checks remain present and fail closed if the stack
scope is missing or invalid.
## What Changed
- Pin `.github/workflows/pr.yml` to merged master commit
`39b8ee2960541d14b380f95365deecba6723d9bd`.
- Activate the stack-aware trusted workflow that merged in pull request
#12507.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` — 11 tests passed.
- `actionlint .github/workflows/pr.yml .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml`
— passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed.
- Confirm that the caller SHA equals the merge commit for pull request
#12507.
## Risks
- The caller is immutable and points to a commit that exists on
`master`.
- Ordinary pull requests and merge-relevant stack layers still run full
CI.
- A rollback can restore the prior immutable SHA in one line.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The exact deployment suffix and context
window are not exposed. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, Git, and GitHub API access.
## 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 uses trusted GitHub Actions workflows to verify each pull
request.
> - The caller pins the reusable workflow to an immutable merged commit.
> - Native stacked pull requests can inherit a stale lockfile from a
parent layer.
> - Pull request #12461 added safe merge-tree lockfile regeneration to
the trusted workflow.
> - The caller must now select that merged workflow version.
> - This pull request advances the immutable pin to the merge commit
from #12461.
> - The benefit is reliable verification for native stacked pull
requests.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12461
## What Changed
- Pin the trusted pull request workflow to merged commit
`1da6b37fc56dacf5e7ffbd31da35756a1cba41f8`.
- Activate stale lockfile regeneration for native stacked pull requests.
## Verification
- `actionlint .github/workflows/pr.yml`
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
## Risks
- Low risk. This changes only the immutable reusable-workflow pin.
- The target commit is merged into `master` and passed all required
checks.
- The target workflow adds one lockfile-only install to the policy job.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with model `gpt-5`, 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
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull request checks to protect changes.
> - The trusted workflow selects GitHub or AWS runners.
> - Pull request #12462 removed an unreliable stale API equality.
> - The public caller must pin an immutable trusted workflow commit.
> - This pull request changes only that pin.
> - The benefit is correct AWS routing for trusted stacked pull
requests.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12339
Refs #12462
## What Changed
- Pin the thin pull request caller to
f9c32513b2.
## Verification
- actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml
- github-runners/tests/test-workflow.sh .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml
.github/workflows/pr.yml
- The runner group authorizes this SHA and all in-flight prior SHAs.
## Risks
- Low risk. This changes one immutable workflow reference.
- Older workflow SHAs remain authorized while queued and active jobs
finish.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with reasoning and terminal tool use.
## 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 linked existing public pull requests
- [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
- [x] I have run 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 above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull request checks to protect changes.
> - The trusted CI workflow selects GitHub or AWS runners.
> - Pull request #12459 fixed validation when a stacked base advances.
> - The public caller must use an immutable trusted workflow SHA.
> - This pull request changes only that SHA.
> - The benefit is automatic AWS routing for the affected trusted stack
runs.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12339
Refs #12459
## What Changed
- Pin the thin pull request caller to
f929355fb9.
## Verification
- actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml
- github-runners/tests/test-workflow.sh .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml
.github/workflows/pr.yml
- The runner group already authorizes the old and new exact workflow
SHAs.
## Risks
- Low risk. This changes one immutable workflow reference.
- The old workflow SHA remains authorized while current runs finish.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with reasoning and terminal tool use.
## 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 linked existing public pull requests
- [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
- [x] I have run 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 above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings
- [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.
> - Pull request checks protect the application and its contributors.
> - The trusted CI gate must validate both direct and stacked GitHub
merge shapes.
> - Pull request #12457 added that validation at an immutable master
SHA.
> - The active caller still pins the prior workflow version.
> - This pull request pins the caller to the newly authorized SHA.
> - The benefit is safe automatic AWS routing for trusted stacked pull
requests.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12457
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The active caller uses a gate that fails closed on GitHub synthetic
stacked merge parents.
**Subsystem affected**
GitHub Actions pull request routing.
**Current behavior**
Trusted stacked pull requests run on GitHub-hosted runners after the
merge-parent check rejects the synthetic base merge.
**Proposed behavior**
The caller uses the authorized workflow SHA
7b199fcafa.
**Reason and benefit**
The change lets approved stack jobs use the 100-runner AWS Fleet while
all numeric identity and live-state checks remain active.
**Breaking changes**
None for untrusted contributors. Their jobs continue on GitHub-hosted
runners.
**Additional context**
The runner group authorizes both this SHA and the previous SHA during
rotation.
## What Changed
- Pin the thin caller to the authorized stacked-merge validator SHA.
## Verification
- Ran actionlint on both pull request workflows.
- Ran the external routing suite against the trusted workflow and
caller.
- Verified that the runner group authorizes both immutable workflow
versions.
## Risks
A bad pin can stop CI. The target is on master, the previous SHA stays
authorized, and the caller change is a one-line reversible pin update.
> For core feature work, check 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 on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size
are not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, GitHub API access,
and local code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have linked an existing public item and described the issue
in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Pull request checks protect the application and its contributors.
> - The trusted CI workflow sends approved contributors to isolated AWS
runners.
> - Pull request #12455 added safe support for non-master base branches.
> - The active caller still filters for master and uses the previous
immutable workflow SHA.
> - This pull request removes the base-branch trigger filter and pins
the caller to the authorized stack-aware SHA.
> - The benefit is that trusted stacked pull requests can use the AWS
fleet automatically.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12455
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The active pull request caller only triggers for master and selects the
master-only trusted workflow version.
**Subsystem affected**
GitHub Actions pull request routing.
**Current behavior**
Trusted stacked pull requests either do not trigger the default caller
or use a branch-local older caller. Their heavy jobs remain in the
GitHub-hosted queue.
**Proposed behavior**
The caller triggers for every pull request base branch. It uses the
authorized stack-aware workflow at full SHA
d6b33d6c16.
**Reason and benefit**
The change sends heavy jobs from approved stacked pull requests to the
100-runner AWS Fleet. Unlisted contributors still receive the normal
GitHub-hosted checks.
**Breaking changes**
Trusted pull requests with non-master base branches now use AWS.
Untrusted pull requests continue to use GitHub-hosted runners.
**Additional context**
The runner group currently authorizes both the old and new immutable
workflow SHAs. The old SHA stays authorized until outstanding runs
finish.
## What Changed
- Remove the caller base-branch filter so stacked pull requests trigger
CI.
- Pin the thin caller to the authorized stack-aware reusable workflow
SHA.
## Verification
- Ran actionlint on both pull request workflow files.
- Ran the external routing test suite against the new reusable workflow
and thin caller.
- Verified that the runner group authorizes both immutable SHAs and only
the Paperclip repository.
## Risks
A bad pin can stop pull request CI. The target SHA is on master,
contains the reviewed reusable workflow, and is already authorized
beside the prior SHA. This gives the rotation a rollback path. Every
untrusted run still uses a GitHub-hosted gate and route.
> For core feature work, check 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 on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size
are not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, GitHub API access,
and local code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have linked an existing public item and described the issue
in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Summary
- rotate the thin PR caller from
`3b295b05dc8c8dd82c12e4a9c6f721446c5cb2e8` to
`b88fadb0390d2113933d5d155f16b07cbd5dafee`
- keep both exact SHAs authorized during the rotation
- keep AWS routing disabled until the caller and boundary verify
## Validation
- `actionlint .github/workflows/pr.yml .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml`
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
- internal routing harness requires exactly one runner output per gate
execution
## Summary
- rotate the thin PR caller from
`d9fc93d8383ece6fba721881a7aba638867f4996` to
`3b295b05dc8c8dd82c12e4a9c6f721446c5cb2e8`
- keep both exact workflow SHAs authorized in the runner group during
the rotation
- keep `AWS_CI_ENABLED=false` until this caller is merged and verified
## Validation
- `actionlint .github/workflows/pr.yml .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml`
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
- full AWS/GitHub boundary verification passes with zero active runners
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull request CI to validate each proposed change
> - The existing workflow defines every heavy job in a PR-controlled
file
> - A trusted reusable workflow now contains the synchronized CI
definition
> - The caller must use an immutable default-branch SHA
> - This pull request replaces the duplicate job list with that pinned
caller
> - The benefit is automatic secure runner selection without workflow
drift
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12436
Refs #12438
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves how the pull request workflow selects trusted CI capacity.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting CI automation.
**Current behavior**
The active workflow contains a duplicate list of all heavy jobs. It
cannot use the administrator-controlled runner gate.
**Proposed behavior**
The active workflow calls the synchronized trusted workflow at an
immutable SHA. The trusted workflow selects GitHub-hosted or isolated
AWS capacity from the validated contributor identity.
**Reason and benefit**
The thin caller prevents pull request changes from replacing the
external-runner security gate. It also keeps runner selection automatic.
**Breaking changes**
The check names gain the reusable workflow job prefix. AWS routing
remains disabled until the canary starts.
## What Changed
- Replaced the duplicated heavy CI job list with one reusable-workflow
call.
- Pinned the call to the reviewed default-branch commit.
- Limited the caller token to actions, contents, and pull request read
access.
## Verification
- actionlint on both workflow files
- Trusted-routing tests
- Confirmed the pinned SHA contains the workflow and is an ancestor of
master
- Full AWS and GitHub runner-boundary verification with routing disabled
## Risks
The check context names change when GitHub expands the reusable
workflow. The rollout verifies the new aggregate contexts before branch
rules change. The repository kill switch remains off during this pull
request.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked a related public PR or described the issue
with the matching template fields
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull request CI to protect changes before merge
> - The trusted reusable workflow will select isolated AWS capacity
> - The active workflow changed while the reusable workflow waited for
merge
> - The reusable policy must contain every current CI policy step before
activation
> - This pull request synchronizes the migration-order check and shell
validation
> - The benefit is one reviewed workflow version with verified job
parity
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12436
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves the pull request CI workflow synchronization before AWS
runner activation.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting CI automation.
**Current behavior**
The active workflow validates migration order. The new reusable workflow
does not yet contain that check.
**Proposed behavior**
Both workflow definitions contain the same heavy jobs and policy steps
before the active workflow becomes a thin caller.
**Reason and benefit**
The synchronization prevents policy drift during the two-step secure
rollout.
**Breaking changes**
None. AWS routing remains disabled.
## What Changed
- Added the current migration-order validation to the trusted workflow.
- Added the existing shellcheck intent annotation to the active
workflow.
- Verified normalized heavy-job parity between both definitions.
## Verification
- actionlint on both workflow files
- Local trusted-routing and normalized workflow-parity tests
- git diff --check
## Risks
Low risk. The migration check already runs in active CI. This change
copies it into the inactive trusted definition. AWS routing stays
disabled.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked a related public PR or described the issue
with the matching template fields
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app that people use to manage AI agents
for work.
> - Paperclip applies database migrations in numeric order.
> - Two branches can create the same migration number before either
branch merges.
> - The existing repository check can find duplicates only after both
histories are present in one checkout.
> - A pull request must compare its new migrations with the target
branch before merge.
> - This pull request adds that comparison to the existing PR policy
job.
> - The benefit is an early failure with exact renumbering instructions.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The PR policy check for files in `packages/db/src/migrations`.
**Current behavior**
A stale branch can add the same migration number as the target branch.
The existing check does not compare PR additions with the target branch
migration tip.
**Proposed behavior**
The policy job fails when a new PR migration number is not greater than
every migration on the target branch. The error names the conflict, the
next safe number, and the related files to update.
**Reason and benefit**
This prevents duplicate or out-of-order migration numbers from reaching
`master`. It also gives contributors and agents a direct repair
procedure.
**Breaking changes**
None. The change rejects migration numbering that is already unsafe.
## What Changed
- Added a dependency-free check that compares new PR migration files
with the target branch tip.
- Added the check to the existing PR policy job.
- Added tests for no-op, valid, duplicate, and lower-number cases.
## Verification
- `node --test '.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs'` passed 133 tests.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm build` passed.
- `pnpm test:run` passed 4,889 tests and failed 24 unrelated macOS path
and wildcard-listener tests that also affect the current `master`
checkout.
## Risks
- Low risk. The check reads Git history and does not modify migrations.
- The check permits gaps. It only requires each new migration number to
follow the target branch tip.
- The existing migration check continues to validate duplicate numbers,
snapshots, and journal entries inside the PR.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact serving model ID and context-window size
are not exposed in this session. Reasoning, tool use, web access, and
code execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have 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
- [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 runner package now has protocol, transport, provider, catalog,
and authorization foundations.
> - Its first upstream package boundary should expose only the
implemented runtime and test-helper surfaces.
> - Rust correctness belongs in the repository existing build
verification, without introducing a parallel release process.
> - Direct package creation must build the files declared by the package
manifest.
> - This pull request defines the minimal package API and verifies the
optimized runner binaries in the existing PR and release Build jobs.
> - The benefit is a production-ready runner package boundary with
minimal build-process change.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11962
This pull request replaces one bounded part of the archived large runner
change. It follows the package-local authorization change in #12126.
## What Changed
- Export only `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner` and
`@paperclipai/paperclip-runner/testing`.
- Keep Node-only fixture loading and semantic conformance helpers out of
the runtime root.
- Add a provider-neutral semantic conformance kit with stable JSON
comparison and fail-closed input checks.
- Keep deferred SDK, eval, browser, React, lab, and command surfaces
private.
- Pin the runner Rust toolchain to 1.97.1 with the minimal profile and
`rustfmt`.
- Run the Rust workspace tests in release mode.
- Launch the optimized `paperclip-runnerd` and fake-harness binaries in
process-level integration coverage.
- Add one `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` step
to each existing PR and release Build job.
- Make the existing server `prepack` lifecycle run its existing build
after it prepares UI assets.
- Document that no production adapter starts runnerd yet.
This revision adds no standalone GitHub Actions job. It adds no server
runner dependency or runner vendoring. It adds no Docker bootstrap or
clean-consumer harness. It does not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all`
- 66 TypeScript tests
- 8 protocol contract tests
- 56 Rust unit and integration tests
- Release-mode integration coverage launches the optimized runnerd and
fake-harness binaries.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/server-package-build-script.test.ts` (2 tests)
- Clean `pnpm pack` from `server/` rebuilt the server and produced both
`package/dist/index.js` and `package/dist/index.d.ts`.
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` (8
tests)
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `git diff --check`
- No `pnpm-lock.yaml` diff.
- The diff changes 12 files.
## Risks
The runner adds Rust work to the existing Build jobs. These jobs can
take longer on a cold cache. The pinned toolchain makes contributor and
CI behavior reproducible. Cargo tests use `--release` to verify
optimized executables. The server prepack lifecycle now performs the
build that its published entry points require. This can make direct
server packing slower. This pull request does not wire runnerd into the
server. It does not select runnerd for any adapter. Existing application
execution and finalization paths remain unchanged.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. Agentic coding mode used repository tools, code
execution, and automated tests.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run 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, and it takes contributions from outside the core team
> - Those contributions arrive as PRs, and this repository squash-merges
every one of them
> - A squash collapses the whole branch into a single commit authored by
whoever pressed the button
> - So when a maintainer rebases and lands a contributor's stale PR, the
contributor's name survives only if the squash message carries a
`Co-Authored-By` trailer
> - Nothing prompts for that trailer, and the PR page keeps showing the
original author either way, so losing it is invisible at the moment it
happens
> - This pull request has commitperclip detect the situation and print
the exact trailers to paste
> - The benefit is that keeping an outside contributor's name is a
default rather than something a maintainer has to remember
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists. The problem follows, and it is not hypothetical.
**What happened?**
#11370, #11371 and #11379 landed @stubbi's work yesterday. Each of those
PRs carries a comment from me telling them their authorship would be
preserved. All three squash commits went in without a `Co-Authored-By`
trailer, so `git log` credits none of them:
| commit | landed from | credited |
| --- | --- | --- |
| `66515582e` | #9900 | Claude only |
| `bc0b5a164` | #9501 | Claude only |
| `35a9b9873` | #8982 | Claude only |
| `6542ad1f4` | #11259 | ✅ Jannes Stubbemann + Claude |
The last one has the trailer because that message was written by hand
with the contributor in mind. The only difference between the two
outcomes was memory. Master history cannot be rewritten, so those three
are now credited by comment on the original PRs — which is a worse
record than a commit trailer, and the reason to make this automatic.
**Expected behavior**
When a branch carries commits by someone other than the PR author, the
merger is told what trailers the squash needs.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at `92047cac4`.
## What Changed
- `.github/scripts/check-pr-coauthors.mjs` — new gate.
- `.github/scripts/run-quality-gates.mjs` — fetches the PR's commits and
runs it.
- `.github/scripts/tests/check-pr-coauthors.test.mjs` — 12 cases.
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml` — runs `.github/scripts/tests/`.
### Informational, not a failure
The squash message does not exist while the PR is open. This can neither
be verified there nor fixed there, so failing a PR on it would block
work on something its author cannot satisfy. The gate notices that the
situation applies and prints the lines to paste.
Run against #11370's actual commits it produces exactly what was
missing:
```
This branch carries commits by stubbi. Squash-merging drops that authorship
unless the squash message carries their trailers, and nothing else will notice
if it does not. Add to the squash body when merging:
Co-Authored-By: Jannes Stubbemann <stubbi@users.noreply.github.com>
```
### Edge cases it handles
Bots skipped; the PR author's own commits skipped; logins compared
case-insensitively (`PR_AUTHOR` does not always arrive in the same case
as the commit author login); each contributor listed once however many
commits they wrote; and a commit GitHub could not match to an account
falls back to its raw git author — that identity being the one most
likely to be lost, not least likely.
Paging stops at the API's own 250-commit ceiling rather than spinning on
full pages of nothing new.
### The test directory was not running
`.github/scripts/tests/` held ten test files covering the existing
gates, and no workflow ran any of them. Adding an eleventh would have
meant adding a test that never executes, so `pr.yml` now runs the
directory. All **149** pass, including the 137 that were already there
and previously unverified in CI.
## Verification
- 149 tests pass via `node --test '.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs'` —
the exact command CI now runs.
- The gate was run against the real commit shape from #11370 and
produces the missing trailer verbatim.
This PR is its own negative control: the branch carries only my commits,
so the new gate should stay silent on it. If commitperclip prints a
co-author note below, the gate is wrong.
## Risks
Low. Informational output only — it cannot fail a PR, and `allPassed` is
unchanged.
It adds one API call per gate run (`/pulls/{n}/commits`), fetched in the
same `Promise.all` as the existing PR and files calls.
Enabling the previously-unrun test directory could in principle surface
a pre-existing failure; all 149 pass locally, so it does not.
Revert the commit to restore.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), through Claude Code. Extended thinking
enabled. Tool use enabled: file read and edit, shell for test runs.
## 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
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [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: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip runs across the CLI, server, adapters, plugins, CI, and
container images.
> - These surfaces declared different Node.js versions from 20 through
24.
> - A newer `@types/node` major can expose APIs that the supported
runtime does not provide.
> - Node.js 20 is no longer a suitable project baseline, and Node.js 24
is the current LTS line.
> - This pull request sets Node.js 24.11.0 as one repository-wide
baseline, adds a drift check, and gives users actionable startup
guidance when their runtime is too old.
> - The benefit is one clear runtime contract for development, release,
installation, and published packages.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #2734
Refs #11727
Refs #739
## What Changed
- Require Node.js 24.11.0 or newer in all 42 package manifests and
runtime checks.
- Use Node.js 24 in GitHub Actions, Docker images, smoke images, sandbox
setup, portable installs, and esbuild targets.
- Align every direct `@types/node` declaration on `^24.0.0`.
- Prevent Dependabot from opening major `@types/node` upgrades without a
matching runtime decision.
- Add `.nvmrc` and a CI policy check for Node version drift.
- Update ACP version gates, tests, and user documentation for the new
minimum.
- Print a non-blocking warning on CLI and server startup when Node is
unsupported, with remediation through a version manager or the
documented downloaded `install.sh` workflow.
- Deduplicate that warning when `paperclipai run` boots the CLI and
server in the same process.
## Verification
- `node scripts/check-node-version-policy.mjs`
- `node --check scripts/check-node-version-policy.mjs`
- `node --check cli/esbuild.config.mjs`
- `node --check scripts/generate-npm-package-json.mjs`
- `bash -n scripts/install.sh scripts/test-install-sh-docker.sh
scripts/e2e-install-lifecycle.sh`
- Parsed all 42 package manifests and confirmed `engines.node` is
`>=24.11.0`.
- `git diff --check`
- `vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-install-command.test.ts` passed with
3 tests.
- `vitest run cli/src/node-version.test.ts` passed with 4 tests.
- Directly exercised the shared warning helper for unsupported-version
messaging and same-process deduplication.
- The focused exe.dev suite could not resolve the locally unbuilt plugin
SDK from this isolated worktree. A full offline workspace install was
also blocked because the package-manager signature verifier requires
registry access. The full suite was not run locally; draft CI performs a
clean install and evaluates the wider impact.
## Risks
- This is a breaking runtime change for users, plugins, and deployments
that still use Node.js 20 or 22.
- Published workspace packages will now produce an engine warning or
failure in strict package managers on older Node.js releases.
- Node.js 24 can reveal dependency, native module, Playwright, or agent
CLI compatibility issues in CI.
- The bootstrap installer now installs Node.js 24 when the current
runtime is older than 24.11.0.
- The portable sandbox fallback is pinned to Node.js 24.11.0 and depends
on that upstream tarball remaining available.
- Unsupported runtimes continue booting after a warning, so a later
incompatibility can still fail at its point of use.
- The CLI and server share the warning policy through the published
`@paperclipai/shared` package; packaging checks must keep that subpath
export available.
- This PR does not commit `pnpm-lock.yaml` because repository policy
assigns lockfile generation to CI.
> 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 based on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context
window are not exposed in this session. Reasoning, repository tools,
shell execution, and GitHub tools were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have 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>
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100). -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The PR verify workflow gates every pull request; its wall-clock time
sets the feedback loop for all contributors
> - In a recent successful PR run (actions run 32012408876), the slowest
check was "Verify serialized server suites (1/5)" at 337s, while its
four sibling shards finished in 212-238s
> - The serialized lane assigns suites to shards round-robin over an
alphabetical list, so the heavy heartbeat and issues suites cluster on
one runner
> - The general-server lane already solves this with a duration-aware
LPT partition backed by a recorded manifest
> - This pull request reuses that partitioner for the serialized lane
with a fresh per-suite duration manifest
> - The benefit is a balanced serialized matrix: the measured 968s suite
total levels to about 194s per shard, which removes about 80-100s from
the run's slowest check
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The `Verify serialized server suites` shard matrix in
`.github/workflows/pr.yml` distributes route/authz test suites across
five runners.
**Subsystem affected**
CI / test infrastructure (`scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`).
**Current behavior**
`selectSerializedSuites` assigns suites round-robin (`index %
shardCount`) over the alphabetically sorted file list. The heavy suites
cluster on shard 1/5. In actions run 32012408876, shard 1/5 spent 291s
in its test step while the other shards spent 170-201s, which made that
job (337s total) the slowest check of the whole PR run.
**Proposed behavior**
Partition the serialized suites with the same duration-aware LPT
algorithm the general-server lane already uses
(`scripts/general-server-shard.mjs`), backed by a new per-suite duration
manifest. All five shards then carry about 194s of measured test time.
**Reason and benefit**
The slowest check bounds PR feedback time. Balancing the serialized
matrix removes about 80-100s from that bound without adding runners.
**Breaking changes**
None. The partition remains deterministic, complete, and
non-overlapping; suites missing from the manifest get the median weight.
## What Changed
- Added `scripts/serialized-shard-durations.json`: per-suite wall-clock
durations (ms) for all 134 serialized suites, sampled from actions run
32012408876 by diffing consecutive per-suite label timestamps in the
shard logs (captures vitest spawn overhead, not just reported test time)
- `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`: `selectSerializedSuites` now uses the
existing LPT partitioner (`selectGeneralServerShard`) with the new
manifest instead of round-robin
- `scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: added a
manifest-freshness test and a shard-balance test for the serialized
lane, mirroring the general-server ones
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml`: updated the serialized matrix comment with
the new measurement and mechanism
## Verification
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`
passes (13 tests), including the existing test that the serialized
shards form a complete, non-overlapping partition
- Dry-run of all five shards shows estimated totals of
194/194/194/194/193s (round-robin was 276/175/160/172/187s):
`node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode serialized --shard-index N
--shard-count 5 --dry-run`
- The `Verify serialized server suites` jobs on this PR run the real
partition end to end
## Risks
- Low risk. Selection logic only; the vitest invocation per suite is
unchanged
- A stale manifest degrades gracefully: unknown suites get the median
weight, and a dedicated test fails if fewer than half the current suites
have recorded durations
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5`, agentic coding session
with tool use (Claude Code / Claude Agent SDK); no extended-thinking
mode
## 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
Related prior work: #10923 (split serialized tests into five shards),
#10925 (general-server duration manifest), #11156 (workspaces-a native
shards).
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Split the slow workspaces-a CI lane into two Vitest native shards and keep release verification in parity.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The PR workflow runs the server vitest suite across sharded runners
because the suite is pinned to one worker.
> - In successful PR run 30930345729 (2026-08-04), shard `server (3/4)`
took 311 seconds of wall time and was the slowest check in the run.
> - The suite has grown to about 946 seconds of serial vitest time, but
the duration manifest was last sampled on 2026-08-01 at about 882
seconds.
> - This pull request refreshes the per-suite duration manifest from
that run's logs and splits the lane into five shards.
> - The benefit is a shorter PR critical path: each shard carries about
196 seconds of suite time, level with the other lanes.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10663 (previous split of this lane into four shards).
Related: #10923 splits the separate serialized-suites lane into five
shards. Both PRs touch `.github/workflows/pr.yml` in different matrix
blocks; whichever merges second needs a trivial rebase.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The `general-server` vitest lane runs in four shards with a duration
manifest sampled on 2026-08-01.
**Current behavior**
In PR run 30930345729, shard 3/4 ran for 311 seconds (273 seconds in the
test step) and was the longest check in the run. The suite now totals
about 946 seconds of serial vitest time.
**Proposed behavior**
Run the same suite set in five shards, balanced with a per-suite
duration manifest refreshed from that run's shard logs (279 suites
measured by diffing consecutive completion timestamps).
**Reason and benefit**
The refreshed LPT partition balances at about 196 seconds of suite time
per shard (about 240 seconds per job), level with the other PR lanes. No
test coverage is lost.
**Breaking changes**
None. The change only alters the CI partition size and the duration
manifest.
## What Changed
- Bump the `general-server` shard matrix in `.github/workflows/pr.yml`
from four to five shards.
- Refresh `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` from the
2026-08-04 run's shard logs.
- Update `SHARD_COUNT` in
`scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` to five.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` — 9/9
pass, including the complete non-overlapping partition proof and the
duration-balance check.
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` — 2/2
pass.
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` — 7/7 pass.
- A 5-way dry-run partition covers all suites exactly once with equal
projected weights.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change only alters CI partition size and duration
weights; the suite set is unchanged.
- One more runner is used per PR run for this lane.
- Stale duration weights degrade gracefully: suites missing from the
manifest get the median weight.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), Claude Code CLI, model ID `claude-fable-5`,
extended thinking with tool use enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have 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
(workflow comments explain the new shard math)
- [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: Claude <claude@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses CI to keep control-plane changes safe and mergeable.
> - The PR workflow splits serialized server tests across isolated
runners.
> - A recent successful run spent 305 seconds in serialized shard 2/4.
> - That job was the slowest check in the run.
> - The four shards reported about 739 seconds of Vitest suite time.
> - This pull request adds a fifth serialized shard and keeps release
verification aligned.
> - The benefit is a shorter PR critical path with no loss of test
coverage.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The PR and release verification workflows run serialized server tests in
four shards.
**Current behavior**
Successful PR run 30876682788 spent 305 seconds in `Verify serialized
server suites (2/4)`. The test step used 256 seconds and made this job
the slowest check.
**Proposed behavior**
Run the same serialized suite set in five complete and non-overlapping
shards.
**Reason and benefit**
The measured suites reported about 739 seconds of total Vitest time.
Five runners reduce the expected average suite time from about 185
seconds to about 148 seconds before setup overhead.
**Breaking changes**
None. The change only alters CI partition size.
## What Changed
- Split serialized server tests into five shards in the PR workflow.
- Apply the same five-shard layout to release verification.
- Add a partition test that proves complete and non-overlapping
serialized coverage.
- Update release workflow coverage tests for five shards.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs
scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
- Low risk. CI uses one additional runner for the serialized lane.
- Round-robin partition weights can still vary as suite timings change.
> This change does not overlap with planned core work in `ROADMAP.md`.
Related PR #10663 optimized the separate general-server lane.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, agentic coding 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)
- [ ] 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: Devin Foley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Pull request CI must give contributors fast and stable feedback.
> - The `general-server` Vitest lane runs many single-worker server
suites.
> - A recent completed PR run showed this lane as the slowest completed
check.
> - Three shards still left one runner with the largest share of work.
> - This pull request splits that lane into four duration-balanced
shards.
> - The benefit is a shorter critical path for the same server test
coverage.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this CI maintenance change.
**Pre-submission checklist**
- I confirmed this improves existing behavior. It does not add a new
command, endpoint, or concept.
- I searched open public issues and pull requests for related CI
sharding work.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The pull request workflow's `general-server` Vitest lane.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting. This affects GitHub Actions CI and the Vitest shard
duration manifest.
**Current behavior**
The `general-server` lane uses three shards. The server suites now total
about 880 seconds of serial Vitest wall time. The slowest shard was
about 313 seconds in the measured run.
**Proposed behavior**
The `general-server` lane uses four shards. Each shard receives about
220 seconds of predicted suite weight from the refreshed duration
manifest.
**Reason and benefit**
The slowest PR check controls how soon a reviewer can trust the PR. Four
balanced shards reduce the slowest `general-server` shard while keeping
the same suite selection rules.
**Breaking changes**
None. This only changes CI partitioning and duration data for existing
test suites.
**Additional context**
Related public searches found no exact open issue or pull request for
this `general-server` sharding change.
## What Changed
- Split the `general-server` CI matrix from three shards to four shards.
- Refreshed `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` with wall-time
weights from a recent completed PR run.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD`
- Dry-ran the four `general-server` shards locally during
implementation. The partition covers 300 unique suites with about 220.56
seconds of predicted weight per shard.
- Ran a local sensitive-data scan before push. It found only test
filenames that contain words such as `secret` or `token`, not credential
values.
## Risks
Low risk. The main risk is that the duration manifest becomes stale as
suite costs move. Missing suites fall back to the median weight, so the
lane still runs if the manifest is incomplete.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with tool use and local command 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 uses pull request CI to test changes before merge.
> - The e2e PR lane runs Playwright specs in a shard matrix.
> - Each shard builds a list of spec files for its matrix entry.
> - The workflow passed that list after a literal `--` separator.
> - Playwright did not receive the list as file filters.
> - This pull request removes the separator and adds a guard test.
> - The benefit is that each e2e shard runs only its assigned specs.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #10629.
**What happened?**
The e2e shard step used `pnpm run test:e2e -- $specs`. The shard spec
list was not applied as Playwright file filters.
**Expected behavior**
Each e2e shard should pass only its selected specs to Playwright.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Inspect `.github/workflows/pr.yml` at the merge commit for #10629.
2. Find the `e2e_shards` command that invokes `pnpm run test:e2e`.
3. See the literal `--` before `$specs`.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`86767951`
**Deployment mode**
GitHub Actions PR CI.
## What Changed
- Removed the literal `--` from the e2e shard `pnpm run test:e2e $specs`
invocation.
- Added a regression test that checks the workflow passes `$specs`
without that separator.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
## Risks
Low risk. This changes one CI command and one workflow guard test. The
main risk is shell argument handling in the workflow, and the guard now
covers the expected command shape.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 through Codex. The run used shell and GitHub CLI tool
access. The runtime did not expose a 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 is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The pull request workflow protects changes with a Playwright e2e
lane.
> - That lane already uses a weighted file partition so slow specs do
not cluster by test count.
> - Recent green PR runs showed the two e2e shard jobs were slower than
the next slow required lane.
> - The largest spec is indivisible, so a third shard lets that spec run
alone and lets the rest split by duration.
> - This pull request changes only the PR e2e shard matrix and the guard
test.
> - The benefit is a shorter expected PR critical path while the
required `e2e` aggregate check name stays stable.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9923
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The `pull_request` workflow Playwright e2e lane.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: GitHub Actions CI and test scripts.
**Current behavior**
The PR workflow runs the weighted Playwright e2e partition across two
jobs. Recent green runs showed those jobs as the slowest required
checks.
**Proposed behavior**
The PR workflow runs the same e2e spec set across three weighted jobs.
The aggregate required check stays named `e2e`.
**Reason and benefit**
The third shard lets the slow smoke-lab spec run alone while the rest of
the catalog stays balanced. This should shorten the PR critical path.
The win is bounded by fixed per-job setup time.
**Breaking changes**
None. The required aggregate check contract is preserved.
## What Changed
- Change the PR e2e shard matrix from two entries to three entries.
- Update the shard guard test to expect three shards.
- Floor the balance bound at the largest single spec weight.
- Assert that the workflow does not define more shard indexes than
`SHARD_COUNT`.
## Verification
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` passes with 6
tests.
- The recorded-weight partition is complete and non-overlapping: 168.0s,
116.5s, and 114.4s.
- I checked `ROADMAP.md` and found no overlapping roadmap-level core
feature.
- I searched public GitHub PRs and issues for related e2e shard work. I
found related PR #9923 and no open duplicate for this branch or change.
## Risks
- This adds one extra GitHub Actions runner to the PR e2e lane.
- The wall-clock win is bounded by fixed per-job setup.
- Behavior risk is low because the aggregate required check remains
named `e2e`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool-enabled coding agent in this repository. The
runtime did not expose the 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: Cody <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses GitHub Actions to keep generated lockfile changes
deterministic in CI
> - The workflow decides when to regenerate the lockfile based on
file/path changes
> - Patch changes can live under a top-level `patches/` directory, and
those changes also affect dependency resolution
> - If the workflow misses that path, CI can skip lockfile regeneration
when it should run
> - This pull request adds top-level `patches/` to the trigger so patch
updates participate in the existing lockfile regeneration flow
> - The benefit is that patch-related dependency changes continue to get
the same CI protection as the other manifest and workspace triggers
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue is linked here. The underlying problem is that
top-level `patches/` files are part of pnpm's dependency graph, but the
PR workflow's lockfile-regeneration gate only looked at package
manifests, workspace config, `.npmrc`, and `pnpmfile.*` changes. That
meant patch-only edits could skip `pnpm install --lockfile-only` and
leave downstream frozen-install jobs on a stale lockfile.
This PR keeps the existing manual lockfile edit guard in place. The
intended behavior is still: CI owns lockfile regeneration, and patch
changes are allowed to trigger that regeneration without letting
contributors commit `pnpm-lock.yaml` directly.
## What Changed
- Added top-level `patches/` to the PR workflow's dependency-resolution
trigger.
- Left the manual `pnpm-lock.yaml` edit blocker unchanged so CI still
owns lockfile regeneration.
## Verification
- `git diff --check .github/workflows/pr.yml`
- Verified the workflow path predicate matches
`patches/acpx@0.12.0.patch`, `package.json`,
`packages/shared/package.json`, `pnpm-workspace.yaml`, `.npmrc`,
`pnpmfile.cjs`, `pnpmfile.js`, and `pnpmfile.mjs`, while excluding
nested patch paths and unrelated files.
## Risks
- Low risk: this only broadens the workflow trigger set for lockfile
regeneration.
- The main behavioral change is that patch updates at the repository
root now participate in the same CI path as manifest and workspace
changes.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based tool-using agent.
## 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
- [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 pull request workflow is the main merge gate for changes to that
app.
> - The Playwright e2e lane is expensive because every spec shares one
isolated server and runs serially.
> - Splitting that lane across runners shortens the critical path, but
the public required-check contract still needs a check named exactly
`e2e`.
> - This pull request shards the real e2e work while preserving a fast
aggregate `e2e` job for branch protection.
> - The benefit is a faster PR workflow without making otherwise-good
PRs unmergeable because a legacy required check disappeared.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this CI follow-up.
Related prior CI work:
- Refs #8360
- Refs #9168
- Refs #9516
Bug report:
### What happened?
Sharding the PR e2e lane directly at the workflow job level changes the
emitted check names to shard-specific names, while existing branch
protection expects a check named exactly `e2e`.
### Expected behavior
The PR workflow should be able to run e2e specs across multiple runners
while still emitting a stable aggregate check named `e2e`.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Open a PR against `master`.
2. Run the PR workflow with the e2e lane split only as a matrix job.
3. Observe that the shard checks complete, but a required check named
exactly `e2e` never appears.
### Paperclip version or commit
Current `master`.
### Deployment mode
GitHub Actions pull request workflow.
## What Changed
- Added `scripts/e2e-shard.mjs`, which partitions default Playwright e2e
specs by recorded per-spec duration.
- Added `scripts/e2e-shard-durations.json` with measured e2e spec
durations so the slow smoke-lab spec does not dominate one runner.
- Split the PR workflow e2e lane into two `e2e_shards` matrix jobs and
added a fast aggregate job named exactly `e2e`.
- Added `scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` to lock the shard
partition, ignored-spec sync, manifest coverage, and aggregate
required-check contract.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`
- `git diff --check upstream/master..HEAD`
- Searched GitHub for duplicate or related e2e-shard / required-check
PRs and issues before opening this PR; no direct duplicate was found.
## Risks
Low risk. The main risk is that the duration manifest can drift as specs
are added or runtimes change; missing specs fall back to the median
known duration, and the focused shard test catches empty, overlapping,
or badly imbalanced partitions.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex CLI coding agent, with shell/tool execution and
repository inspection.
## 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.
> - Releases publish the same app and package set that operators
install, so release verification should keep full release-strength
coverage.
> - The release workflow currently verifies stable and canary releases
with one serial job that typechecks, runs all tests, and builds.
> - The PR workflow already proves the test surface can be split into
grouped general suites and serialized shards without changing coverage.
> - This pull request extracts the release verify work into a reusable
workflow and fans out the independent lanes.
> - The benefit is faster stable and canary release verification while
preserving the existing publish and preview gates.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this CI improvement.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting (multiple of the above)
**Problem or motivation**
Release verification spends most of its wall time in a single serial
test step even though the same stable test surface is already
partitioned for PR CI. Stable dispatches and master-push canaries
therefore wait on one long runner after setup, typecheck, tests, and
build run sequentially.
**Proposed solution**
Add a reusable release verification workflow with parallel typecheck,
grouped general tests, serialized test shards, and build lanes. Have
both stable and canary release verification call it with the ref they
need to verify.
**Alternatives considered**
Keeping the serial `pnpm test:run` job preserves the old shape but keeps
stable and canary releases waiting on one long runner. Skipping
verification when a source SHA already has green CI would be faster, but
adds stale-check and lookup risk beyond this change.
**Roadmap alignment**
No overlapping item found in `ROADMAP.md`; this is release CI
maintenance.
**Additional context**
The new workflow keeps the release-strength full `pnpm -r typecheck`,
uses the existing stable test grouping/sharding entry points, and leaves
publish/preview jobs unchanged.
## What Changed
- Added `.github/workflows/release-verify.yml` as a `workflow_call`
workflow accepting a `ref` input.
- Split release verification into parallel `typecheck`, `general_tests`,
`serialized_tests`, and `build` jobs with 20-minute lane timeouts.
- Mirrored the PR workflow's stable test partition: `general-server`
shards 1-3, `general-workspaces-a`, `general-workspaces-b`, and four
serialized shards.
- Replaced `release.yml` `verify_canary` and `verify_stable` job bodies
with calls to the reusable workflow while leaving publish and preview
jobs unchanged.
- Added a Node test that guards the release workflow delegation and
split verify surface.
## Verification
- `actionlint 1.7.12 .github/workflows/release.yml
.github/workflows/release-verify.yml`
- `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check`
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs
./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
- Release verification now starts more jobs per release event,
increasing total runner setup/install minutes. This matches the existing
PR CI tradeoff and should reduce release wall time substantially.
- The called workflow checks out the requested ref shallowly. That is
intentional for verify lanes; publish and preview jobs still retain
their existing full-history checkouts.
> 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-class coding agent in local tool-use mode with shell
execution, repository editing, GitHub connector access, and medium
reasoning.
## 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
> - CI runs a Canary Dry Run job that exercises `release.sh`, which
builds the standalone sandbox-provider packages for publish
> - That step (`scripts/build-standalone-public-packages.mjs`) built the
7 provider plugins serially — each doing `rm -rf dist && tsc` — making
it the dominant cost (~49s) inside the slowest PR check (~4.9m wall)
after the general-server lane was already sharded
> - The packages are independent (their own `node_modules` via
`--ignore-workspace`, their own `dist`), so the serial build is pure
latency with no correctness benefit
> - This pull request builds them with a bounded-concurrency pool sized
to the runner CPU count (overridable via
`STANDALONE_BUILD_CONCURRENCY`), buffering each package's output and
flushing it as one block so parallel logs stay readable, and aggregating
failures by original index
> - The benefit is a faster Canary Dry Run / PR feedback loop without
changing what gets built or published
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists. Inline feature/perf description:
### Problem or motivation
`build-standalone-public-packages.mjs` builds standalone provider
packages serially, making it the largest single cost inside the slowest
PR check.
### Proposed solution
Run independent per-package builds through a bounded-concurrency worker
pool sized to runner CPU count, with an env override and readable
buffered logs.
### Alternatives considered
Keep the serial build for simpler logs, but that preserves the avoidable
CI latency.
### Roadmap alignment
This is CI maintenance and does not overlap planned core roadmap work.
## What Changed
- `scripts/build-standalone-public-packages.mjs`: replaced the serial
per-package build loop with a bounded-concurrency pool (default = runner
CPU count, override via `STANDALONE_BUILD_CONCURRENCY`); per-package
stdout/stderr is buffered and flushed as a single block; failures are
aggregated by original package index so one failure neither aborts the
others mid-flight nor obscures which package broke.
- `scripts/__tests__/build-standalone-concurrency.test.mjs`: new
`node:test` unit suite covering the pool (limit respected, all items
run, ordered failure aggregation, env-override resolution).
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml`: wired the new unit test into the policy
job.
## Verification
- `node --test
./scripts/__tests__/build-standalone-concurrency.test.mjs` → 6/6 pass
- `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check` → OK (29 enabled for CI
publish)
- `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` → clean
## Risks
- Low risk. Build inputs/outputs are unchanged; only scheduling differs.
The concurrency is bounded by CPU count and overridable; output is
buffered per package so logs remain attributable. If a package fails,
all failures are still reported with their package index.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking with tool
use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] 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
> - Every PR runs the `PR` GitHub Actions workflow, whose `verify` gate
fans out into parallel test lanes (general tests, serialized server
route suites, build, typecheck)
> - The `General tests (server)` lane had grown into the run's critical
path: it executed all ~213 non-route server suites serially in a single
job (~7.2m of test time), more than 2x any other job
> - It runs serially because `server/vitest.config.ts` pins `maxWorkers:
1`, so server suites cannot parallelize within a single runner — the
only lever is spreading them across runners
> - This pull request shards that lane into 3 even partitions that run
on separate runners, mirroring the 4-way sharding already used for the
serialized route suites
> - The benefit is the lane drops from ~7.7m to ~2.4m/shard, cutting
overall PR wall time roughly in half (~8.5m → ~4.2m)
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this work, so the underlying issue is
described inline following the feature-request template.
### Problem or motivation
PR CI wall time had crept back up to ~8.5m. On a recent fully-green run,
the `General tests (server)` job took 7.72m — more than double any other
job and the clear critical path. Of that, 7.23m was pure test execution
(dependency install was a cached 0.27m). The job ran all server suites
that are not route/authz tests (213 files) one after another, because
the server vitest project pins `maxWorkers: 1`, making these suites
inherently serial within a single runner.
### Proposed solution
Shard the general-server lane across 3 parallel runners — the same
technique the route/authz suites already use — so the suite set is split
into even, deterministic partitions that run concurrently. Add a
regression test that proves the shards always cover the full suite set
with no gaps or overlap.
### Alternatives considered
- **Raise `maxWorkers` for the server project** to parallelize within
one runner — rejected: the server suites share process-level state
(DB/port), which is exactly why `maxWorkers: 1` is pinned.
- **Two shards instead of three** — would leave the lane at ~3.6m, still
above the next bottleneck (Canary Dry Run, ~4.1m wouldn't be the gate).
Three lands the lane comfortably below it.
- **Do nothing / accept the slow lane** — rejected: it gates every PR.
### Roadmap alignment
Developer-experience / CI tooling. Not core product roadmap work; does
not overlap with planned features in `ROADMAP.md`.
## What Changed
- `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`: the `general-server` general-test
group now accepts `--shard-index` / `--shard-count`. It enumerates the
full server test set (the whole `server/src` tree, minus the route/authz
suites that already run in their own serialized shards) and splits it
deterministically by modulo. The non-sharded local invocation (`pnpm
test:run:general --group general-server`) is unchanged.
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml`: the `general_tests` matrix runs
`general-server` as 3 parallel shards (1/3, 2/3, 3/3). Workspace groups
are unchanged. The `verify` gate already aggregates the whole matrix
result, so the required check name is unaffected.
- `scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: a `node:test`
suite asserting the 3 shards form a complete, non-overlapping partition
of the general-server set, that no route/authz suite leaks into it, and
that shard flags are rejected for the parallel workspace groups. Wired
into the `policy` job.
## Verification
- New partition test passes locally: `node --test
./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` (3/3).
- Confirmed the 3 shards form a complete, non-overlapping partition of
all 213 files (71/71/71).
- Ran a live thin shard (3 real server suites, including one outside
`__tests__`) — 23 tests passed, confirming positional-include execution
works end to end.
- This PR's own CI is the authoritative check: all three `General tests
(server (n/3))` jobs went green on the prior run, collectively covering
every suite the old single job ran.
## Risks
- Low risk. No product code changes — only test orchestration and CI
matrix. Shard partitioning is deterministic and is now covered by an
automated test that fails if the partition ever develops a gap or
overlap. Modulo-on-sorted-filenames balances duration reasonably,
matching the approach already proven by the serialized route shards.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic), `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking + tool use
(agentic coding via Paperclip).
## 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
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A — no UI change)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
(inline comments explain the sharding rationale)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending this PR's run)
- [ ] 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
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Bumps
[actions/download-artifact](https://github.com/actions/download-artifact)
from 4 to 8.
<details>
<summary>Release notes</summary>
<p><em>Sourced from <a
href="https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/releases">actions/download-artifact's
releases</a>.</em></p>
<blockquote>
<h2>v8.0.0</h2>
<h2>v8 - What's new</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>[!IMPORTANT]
actions/download-artifact@v8 has been migrated to an ESM module. This
should be transparent to the caller but forks might need to make
significant changes.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>[!IMPORTANT]
Hash mismatches will now error by default. Users can override this
behavior with a setting change (see below).</p>
</blockquote>
<h3>Direct downloads</h3>
<p>To support direct uploads in <code>actions/upload-artifact</code>,
the action will no longer attempt to unzip all downloaded files.
Instead, the action checks the <code>Content-Type</code> header ahead of
unzipping and skips non-zipped files. Callers wishing to download a
zipped file as-is can also set the new <code>skip-decompress</code>
parameter to <code>true</code>.</p>
<h3>Enforced checks (breaking)</h3>
<p>A previous release introduced digest checks on the download. If a
download hash didn't match the expected hash from the server, the action
would log a warning. Callers can now configure the behavior on mismatch
with the <code>digest-mismatch</code> parameter. To be secure by
default, we are now defaulting the behavior to <code>error</code> which
will fail the workflow run.</p>
<h3>ESM</h3>
<p>To support new versions of the @actions/* packages, we've upgraded
the package to ESM.</p>
<h2>What's Changed</h2>
<ul>
<li>Don't attempt to un-zip non-zipped downloads by <a
href="https://github.com/danwkennedy"><code>@danwkennedy</code></a> in
<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/pull/460">actions/download-artifact#460</a></li>
<li>Add a setting to specify what to do on hash mismatch and default it
to <code>error</code> by <a
href="https://github.com/danwkennedy"><code>@danwkennedy</code></a> in
<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/pull/461">actions/download-artifact#461</a></li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Full Changelog</strong>: <a
href="https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/compare/v7...v8.0.0">https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/compare/v7...v8.0.0</a></p>
<h2>v7.0.0</h2>
<h2>v7 - What's new</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>[!IMPORTANT]
actions/download-artifact@v7 now runs on Node.js 24 (<code>runs.using:
node24</code>) and requires a minimum Actions Runner version of 2.327.1.
If you are using self-hosted runners, ensure they are updated before
upgrading.</p>
</blockquote>
<h3>Node.js 24</h3>
<p>This release updates the runtime to Node.js 24. v6 had preliminary
support for Node 24, however this action was by default still running on
Node.js 20. Now this action by default will run on Node.js 24.</p>
<h2>What's Changed</h2>
<ul>
<li>Update GHES guidance to include reference to Node 20 version by <a
href="https://github.com/patrikpolyak"><code>@patrikpolyak</code></a>
in <a
href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/pull/440">actions/download-artifact#440</a></li>
<li>Download Artifact Node24 support by <a
href="https://github.com/salmanmkc"><code>@salmanmkc</code></a> in <a
href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/pull/415">actions/download-artifact#415</a></li>
<li>fix: update <code>@actions/artifact</code> to fix Node.js 24
punycode deprecation by <a
href="https://github.com/salmanmkc"><code>@salmanmkc</code></a> in <a
href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/pull/451">actions/download-artifact#451</a></li>
<li>prepare release v7.0.0 for Node.js 24 support by <a
href="https://github.com/salmanmkc"><code>@salmanmkc</code></a> in <a
href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/pull/452">actions/download-artifact#452</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>New Contributors</h2>
<ul>
<li><a
href="https://github.com/patrikpolyak"><code>@patrikpolyak</code></a>
made their first contribution in <a
href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/pull/440">actions/download-artifact#440</a></li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/salmanmkc"><code>@salmanmkc</code></a>
made their first contribution in <a
href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/pull/415">actions/download-artifact#415</a></li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Full Changelog</strong>: <a
href="https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/compare/v6.0.0...v7.0.0">https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/compare/v6.0.0...v7.0.0</a></p>
<h2>v6.0.0</h2>
<!-- raw HTML omitted -->
</blockquote>
<p>... (truncated)</p>
</details>
<details>
<summary>Commits</summary>
<ul>
<li><a
href="3e5f45b2cf"><code>3e5f45b</code></a>
Add regression tests for CJK characters (<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/issues/471">#471</a>)</li>
<li><a
href="e6d03f6737"><code>e6d03f6</code></a>
Add a regression test for artifact name + content-type mismatches (<a
href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/issues/472">#472</a>)</li>
<li><a
href="70fc10c6e5"><code>70fc10c</code></a>
Merge pull request <a
href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/issues/461">#461</a>
from actions/danwkennedy/digest-mismatch-behavior</li>
<li><a
href="f258da9a50"><code>f258da9</code></a>
Add change docs</li>
<li><a
href="ccc058e5fb"><code>ccc058e</code></a>
Fix linting issues</li>
<li><a
href="bd7976ba57"><code>bd7976b</code></a>
Add a setting to specify what to do on hash mismatch and default it to
<code>error</code></li>
<li><a
href="ac21fcf45e"><code>ac21fcf</code></a>
Merge pull request <a
href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/issues/460">#460</a>
from actions/danwkennedy/download-no-unzip</li>
<li><a
href="15999bff51"><code>15999bf</code></a>
Add note about package bumps</li>
<li><a
href="974686ed50"><code>974686e</code></a>
Bump the version to <code>v8</code> and add release notes</li>
<li><a
href="fbe48b1d27"><code>fbe48b1</code></a>
Update test names to make it clearer what they do</li>
<li>Additional commits viewable in <a
href="https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/compare/v4...v8">compare
view</a></li>
</ul>
</details>
<br />
[](https://docs.github.com/en/github/managing-security-vulnerabilities/about-dependabot-security-updates#about-compatibility-scores)
Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't
alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting
`@dependabot rebase`.
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-start)
[//]: # (dependabot-automerge-end)
---
<details>
<summary>Dependabot commands and options</summary>
<br />
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:
- `@dependabot rebase` will rebase this PR
- `@dependabot recreate` will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits
that have been made to it
- `@dependabot show <dependency name> ignore conditions` will show all
of the ignore conditions of the specified dependency
- `@dependabot ignore this major version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this minor version` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen
the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
- `@dependabot ignore this dependency` will close this PR and stop
Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the
PR or upgrade to it yourself)
</details>
Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com>
Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The PR pipeline runs a "Canary Dry Run" step that validates
dependency PRs against a regenerated `pnpm-lock.yaml` before merge
> - When a dependabot (or other) PR's regenerated lockfile is
byte-identical to `HEAD`, `git commit` exits non-zero with "nothing to
commit, working tree clean"
> - The surrounding `bash -e` step propagates the non-zero exit, failing
the Canary Dry Run for PRs that should be allowed through
> - This pull request guards the commit with `git diff --cached --quiet`
so the step only commits when there is a real staged change
> - The benefit is that dependabot PRs (#7571 storybook bump, #7572) and
any future PR where regen happens to match HEAD stop getting spuriously
blocked by the canary step
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #7571
Refs #7572
PR #7571 (dependabot: storybook 10.3.5 → 10.4.2) and PR #7572 both fail
on the exact same line of the `Canary Dry Run` step:
```
+ git -c user.email=ci@paperclip.local -c user.name=CI commit --no-verify -m 'ci(canary): stage regenerated lockfile'
On branch master
nothing to commit, working tree clean
Error: Process completed with exit code 1.
```
The step regenerates `pnpm-lock.yaml`, stages it, and unconditionally
commits. When the regenerated lockfile matches `HEAD` exactly (which
happens for some dependabot bumps where the lockfile resolution did not
actually change), `git commit` exits 1 and `bash -e` fails the entire
step.
## What Changed
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml`: Wrap the `git commit` inside the Canary
Dry Run step in `if ! git diff --cached --quiet; then ... fi`, so the
commit is skipped when there is no staged diff.
## Verification
- Reproduced the failure on PR #7571 and PR #7572 (identical stack trace
at the `git commit` line of the Canary Dry Run step).
- Local sanity check: `git diff --cached --quiet` returns 0 (no diff)
when the regen is a no-op and non-zero when there is a real change,
which matches the intended branching.
- Once merged, dependabot PRs that previously stalled on this step
should re-run the Canary Dry Run cleanly.
## Risks
- Low risk: the change only adds a guard before an existing `git
commit`. The `else` branch (`git checkout -- pnpm-lock.yaml` when no
artifact lockfile was used) is unchanged. No behavior change when there
*is* a regen diff.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic) — `claude-opus-4-7`, extended thinking off, tool
use enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (workflow YAML change;
verified via shell sanity check of the guard condition)
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable (no test harness
for workflow YAML)
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (n/a — CI workflow only)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (n/a)
- [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 orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Test infrastructure across server, ui, packages/* runs on Vitest
> - Dependabot opened a narrow bump (3.2.4 → 3.2.6), but the wider
workspace is on 3.2.4 and the major-version bridge to v4 needs a
coordinated change set across configs and tests
> - Staying on 3.x indefinitely leaves us behind on Vitest 4 (perf,
pool, and config improvements) and forces repeated patch-only dependabot
churn
> - This pull request upgrades Vitest to 4.1.8 across the workspace,
updates `server/vitest.config.ts` and `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`
for the new API, and adjusts two UI tests for the new assertion
semantics
> - The benefit is a single, coherent Vitest 4 upgrade that supersedes
#7570 and gets us on the supported major line
## What Changed
- Bump `vitest` from `3.2.4` to `4.1.8` across root, `server`, `ui`, and
all `packages/*` (including plugin examples and sandbox providers)
- Update `server/vitest.config.ts` for Vitest 4 config surface
- Update `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs` to match the new runner
behavior
- Adjust `ui/src/components/CommentThread.test.tsx` and
`ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx` for Vitest 4 matcher/timing
semantics
- Refresh `pnpm-lock.yaml`
## Verification
- `pnpm install` resolves cleanly with the new lockfile
- `pnpm -w -r test` (server, ui, packages) runs under Vitest 4.1.8
## Risks
- Major-version Vitest bump: behavioral changes in pools, fake timers,
and matcher strictness can surface flake. Test config and the two UI
tests were updated to match v4 semantics; broader test runs should be
watched on CI before merge.
- Supersedes dependabot PR #7570 (3.2.4 → 3.2.6); that PR should be
closed.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic) — `claude-opus-4-7`, extended thinking, tool use
enabled
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Closes#7570
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The CI pipeline (`.github/workflows/pr.yml`) gates every PR with a
`policy` job and a fleet of downstream test/build/release jobs
> - `policy` blocks committing `pnpm-lock.yaml` from non-dependabot,
non-`chore/refresh-lockfile` branches and (when manifests change)
already regenerates the lockfile in memory — but throws it away
> - Every downstream job runs `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`, so
manifest-only PRs from human/agent branches deadlock: they can't commit
the lockfile and can't pass `--frozen-lockfile` either, and
`refresh-lockfile.yml` only runs `on: push: master`
> - This pull request closes the loop by uploading the regenerated
lockfile as a workflow artifact (`pr-lockfile`) from `policy` and
restoring it in each downstream job before `pnpm install
--frozen-lockfile` runs
> - The benefit is that any manifest-only PR (e.g. a routine dep bump)
goes green end-to-end without a separate refresh-lockfile round-trip,
and unrelated PRs are unaffected because the download step is
best-effort (`continue-on-error: true`)
## What Changed
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml::policy`: add `id: regen_lockfile` to the
existing manifest-detection step, emit a `regenerated` output, and
conditionally `actions/upload-artifact@v4` `pnpm-lock.yaml` as
`pr-lockfile` (retention 1 day) when a manifest changed
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml` (every downstream job —
`typecheck_release_registry`, `general_tests` [3 matrix], `build`,
`verify_serialized_server` [4 matrix], `canary_dry_run`, `e2e`): add a
`Restore regenerated PR lockfile (if policy uploaded one)` step using
`actions/download-artifact@v4` with `continue-on-error: true`, placed
before the existing `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml::canary_dry_run`: guard the pre-existing
`git checkout -- pnpm-lock.yaml` so it no longer clobbers an
artifact-restored lockfile when one is present
## Verification
- `node -e "require('js-yaml').load(...)"` parses the file; all 6
downstream jobs have the restore step, `policy` has the upload step
- This branch is itself a manifest-untouched PR, so `policy` will not
upload an artifact and every downstream job will skip the download
silently — the existing `--frozen-lockfile` path is exercised end-to-end
with no behavioral change for non-manifest PRs
- Once merged, the next manifest-touching PR (PAPA-530's #7581) will
exercise the artifact path and is expected to go green
## Risks
- **Behavior on non-manifest PRs:** the download step uses
`continue-on-error: true` so a missing artifact is silently ignored; net
behavior on PRs that don't change manifests is identical to today
- **Concurrency / cross-PR artifact bleed:** artifacts are scoped to a
single workflow run, so two concurrent PRs can't see each other's
`pr-lockfile`
- **`canary_dry_run`:** the prior unconditional `git checkout --
pnpm-lock.yaml` was a defensive no-op when `--frozen-lockfile` is
honored; the new conditional preserves that for non-manifest PRs and
additionally preserves the artifact-restored lockfile for manifest PRs
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic) — `claude-opus-4-7`, extended thinking, tool use
enabled
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, including
how we ship the public `paperclip` repo itself
> - The `PR` and `commitperclip PR Review` workflows are the CI gating
layer that decides whether any pull request — human or bot — can be
merged to `master`
> - Dependabot opens dependency PRs that always carry a `pnpm-lock.yaml`
diff and an auto-generated PR body, but our `policy` job hard-fails any
non-`chore/refresh-lockfile` lockfile change, and our `commitperclip`
quality gate requires a Thinking-Path / What-Changed / Verification /
Risks / Model template Dependabot can't produce
> - Because `policy` fails first, every downstream lane (`Build`,
`Typecheck + Release Registry`, `General tests`, `Verify serialized
server`, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, and the required `verify` check) skips
and `verify` fails — so we never see whether the upgrade is actually
safe
> - Socket.dev (PR Alerts + Project Report) and Snyk already run on
every dependency PR and are the supply-chain compensating control
against malicious upgrades; the missing piece is just letting our own
build/test signal run so a human can merge with confidence
> - This pull request adds a narrow Dependabot bypass to the two gates
that block on lockfile diffs and PR-template prose, while leaving every
other policy and security check active
> - The benefit is that Dependabot PRs like #7331 will now run the full
PR matrix, giving reviewers real evidence to approve or reject — without
weakening any check that targets supply-chain or build-correctness risk
## What Changed
- `.github/workflows/pr.yml` — extended the existing
`chore/refresh-lockfile` bypass on the `policy` job's "Block manual
lockfile edits" step to also skip when `github.actor ==
'dependabot[bot]'`. Every other policy step (Dockerfile deps stage
validation, `no-git-push` enforcement, release-package map check,
release bootstrap, manifest-driven `pnpm install --lockfile-only`
resolution) keeps running on Dependabot PRs.
- `.github/workflows/commitperclip-review.yml` — gated the `Run quality
gates` step and the dependent `Fail if quality gates failed` step on
`github.event.pull_request.user.login != 'dependabot[bot]'`. `Run
security gates` (`check-pr-security.mjs`) stays unconditional so
supply-chain visibility into Dependabot lockfile churn is preserved.
No changes to `.github/scripts/*.mjs` — keeping the bypass at the
workflow level avoids churning unit-tested code.
## Verification
- CI on this PR: `policy` should pass and the downstream lanes (`Build`,
`Typecheck + Release Registry`, `General tests`, `Verify serialized
server`, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, `verify`) should all run normally
(this PR isn't from Dependabot, so the bypass condition is false —
proves we didn't accidentally widen the exemption).
- After merge, ask Dependabot to rebase #7331 (`@dependabot rebase`) and
confirm:
- `PR / policy` → `success` (lockfile step now `skipped`, other policy
steps `success`)
- `PR / Build`, `PR / Typecheck + Release Registry`, `PR / General tests
(server|workspaces-a|workspaces-b)`, `PR / Verify serialized server
(1/4..4/4)`, `PR / Canary Dry Run`, `PR / e2e` → all execute (none
`skipped`)
- `PR / verify` → `success` once the matrix passes
- `commitperclip PR Review / review` → `success` (quality-gates steps
`skipped` for Dependabot; security gates ran)
- Socket and Snyk checks unchanged
- Local sanity-check: `git diff origin/master..HEAD` shows only the two
workflow files, 7 added / 2 removed lines.
## Risks
- **Auto-merging a poisoned dep.** Mitigated by Socket.dev + Snyk +
human merge approval. This change only affects CI gating, not who clicks
"Merge".
- **Spoofing `github.actor` as `dependabot[bot]`.** GitHub sets
`github.actor` from the push actor; spoofing requires a compromised
Dependabot install token, which is the same threat model that already
lets an attacker push anything to a Dependabot-controlled branch — not a
new risk surface.
- **Policy "Validate dependency resolution when manifests change" step
running `pnpm install --lockfile-only --no-frozen-lockfile` on a
Dependabot lockfile.** That step intentionally uses `--lockfile-only`,
so it only verifies the manifest resolves and does not push or commit
the result. Existing behavior is unchanged.
- Low overall: the diff is two workflow-level `if:` conditions in steps
that already had bypasses.
## Model Used
- Provider: Anthropic Claude (via Claude Code in the Paperclip executor)
- Model ID: claude-opus-4-7
- Context window: 200K
- Reasoning mode: standard tool-use; no extended thinking required for
this change
- Capabilities used: file edit, bash, GraphQL/REST API calls
- Plan was drafted, approved by board, and split into child issues
before implementation; see
[PAPA-490](https://paperclip.ing/PAPA/issues/PAPA-490) for the planning
thread.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass (this change is
workflow-only — no code under test; lint via `yamllint` clean)
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (workflow gating;
no script changes, no unit-testable surface)
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (no UI changes)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (no
docs reference these gates)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents across isolated execution
workspaces; the local cwd is the only persistence boundary between runs.
> - Workspace lifecycle (worktree_prepare → execute →
workspace_finalize) and the wake/accept flow are what guarantee that
dependent issues see a consistent worktree.
> - PAPA-380 / PAPA-431 / PAPA-432 / PAPA-440 surfaced three holes in
that contract: silent env reuse across assignees, dependent wakes firing
before finalize, and `issue.interaction.accept` advancing before
finalize landed.
> - PAPA-441 / PAPA-442 then needed to document the "no remote git"
contract and prevent future adapter/runtime code from quietly
reintroducing `git push` as a backdoor sync.
> - This pull request lands those server fixes, the static
`check-no-git-push` enforcement, the AUTHORING.md cross-link, and the
Cody-review follow-ups on the PAPA-430 thread.
> - The benefit is that finalize is a real barrier — board accepts,
dependent wakes, and operator-set env all respect it — and adapter code
can't bypass it via raw `git push`.
## What Changed
- **server (PAPA-380, PAPA-431):** `execution-workspace-policy` refuses
silent env reuse when the assignee's resolved env disagrees with the
workspace it would inherit. The inheritance protection is now scoped to
the actual inheritance signal — explicit issue-level `environmentId` is
honored even when the agent's default env is `null`.
- **server (PAPA-432):** `heartbeat.ts` gates dependent wakes on
`listUnfinalizedExecutionWorkspaceIds`, and writes a
`workspace_finalize` row on the succeeded path. Write failures now
surface instead of being swallowed so dependents aren't silently
stranded behind a missing row.
- **server (PAPA-440):** `issue-thread-interactions.acceptInteraction`
adds a workspace_finalize precondition for `request_confirmation` (not
`suggest_tasks`). Accept returns 409 if finalize hasn't succeeded for
the latest workspace operation.
- **ci (PAPA-442):** new `scripts/check-no-git-push.mjs` static check
scans `packages/adapters/`, `packages/adapter-utils/`, `server/src/`,
and `cli/src/` for any `git push` invocation (string or args-array).
Wired into the `policy` PR job and `test:release-registry`. Operators
can opt in per-call with `// paperclip:allow-git-push: <reason>`.
Release scripts are out of scope by design.
- **docs (PAPA-441):** `AUTHORING.md` documents the no-remote-git
contract and cross-links the static check so adapter authors learn the
rule and the enforcement together.
- **review follow-up (PAPA-430, Cody):** three fixes — env resolver bug,
accept-gate scope (request_confirmation only), and finalize record write
on the succeeded path.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts` → 33/33
pass
- `node scripts/check-no-git-push.test.mjs` → check covers string form,
args-array form, comment exclusions, and per-line allow-comment.
- Manual: server compiles; the policy job runs the check in <1s before
heavier jobs.
## Risks
- **Behavioral shift in accept:** boards accepting
`request_confirmation` while finalize is in-flight now get 409s. This is
intentional — they can retry — but it changes timing on a hot path.
`suggest_tasks` is unaffected.
- **Workspace policy:** the env-reuse refusal is a new error path.
Issues that previously silently reused an env from a different-assignee
workspace will now fail-loud; the resolver still honors explicit
issue-level `executionWorkspaceSettings.environmentId`.
- **CI rule:** any future legitimate `git push` in scoped dirs must be
marked with the allow-comment, which is the intended ergonomic.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 4.7 (`claude-opus-4-7`, extended thinking), via Claude
Code in the Paperclip executor adapter.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (N/A — server/CI/docs only)
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Closes related issues: PAPA-430, PAPA-380, PAPA-431, PAPA-432, PAPA-440,
PAPA-441, PAPA-442
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip relies on CI browser suites to protect control-plane
workflows, so a stalled browser bootstrap is a release blocker even when
app code is unchanged.
> - The failing signal on [PAPA-457](/PAP/issues/PAPA-457) was specific
to the PR e2e lane timing out before tests started, which pointed at
environment setup rather than assertions.
> - The first shell-only Chromium attempt reduced download size, but the
GitHub Actions log showed Playwright still hanging inside its install
step after the headless shell download finished.
> - That means the real problem is the Playwright browser-install path
itself on the hosted Ubuntu runner, not just the size of the downloaded
artifact.
> - GitHub's Ubuntu runners already ship Google Chrome, and Playwright
can target that binary through the `chrome` channel without downloading
its own Chromium bundle.
> - The safer workflow fix is therefore to remove the Playwright install
step from the affected headless jobs and make the Playwright configs
optionally use runner Chrome only when CI opts into it.
> - This keeps local defaults unchanged, removes the failing
browser-download dependency from CI, and preserves headless coverage for
PR, standalone e2e, and release-smoke workflows.
## What Changed
- Updated `.github/workflows/pr.yml`, `.github/workflows/e2e.yml`, and
`.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml` to stop downloading Playwright
browsers and instead verify the runner's preinstalled `google-chrome`.
- Passed `PAPERCLIP_PLAYWRIGHT_CHANNEL=chrome` into the headless PR,
standalone e2e, and release-smoke test steps so those jobs explicitly
use runner Chrome.
- Updated `tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts` and
`tests/release-smoke/playwright.config.ts` to honor
`PAPERCLIP_PLAYWRIGHT_CHANNEL` while keeping the default
local/browser-bundle behavior unchanged when the env var is absent.
## Verification
- Investigated the failed PR run log and confirmed the prior `Install
Playwright` step stalled after `chromium-headless-shell` reached 100%
download.
- `PLAYWRIGHT_BROWSERS_PATH="$(mktemp -d)"
PAPERCLIP_PLAYWRIGHT_CHANNEL=chrome PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true pnpm run
test:e2e`
Result: `7 passed (21.1s)` with an empty temporary Playwright browser
cache, proving the e2e suite runs without any Playwright browser
download when the `chrome` channel is selected.
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
- This assumes GitHub's Ubuntu runner continues to ship `google-chrome`;
if that image contract changes, these workflows would need a dedicated
Chrome install step.
- The `chrome` channel can differ slightly from Playwright-managed
Chromium, so the config gate is intentionally env-scoped to CI workflows
that need the hosted-runner path.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent running through Paperclip's
`codex_local` adapter with tool use, shell execution, and repository
editing enabled. The exact internal snapshot/version string is not
exposed in-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 run tests locally and they pass
- [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through a control-plane repo that
relies on GitHub Actions as part of its release and verification safety
net.
> - The PR workflow in `.github/workflows/pr.yml` is the core CI path
protecting pull requests before merge.
> - Baseline measurement work in [PAPA-335](/PAPA/issues/PAPA-335)
showed the old single `verify` job was the critical-path bottleneck,
with general tests and build serialized together.
> - Follow-up implementation in [PAPA-338](/PAPA/issues/PAPA-338) and
[PAPA-339](/PAPA/issues/PAPA-339) split that work into parallel lanes
and removed redundant clean-runner prebuild work.
> - [PAPA-340](/PAPA/issues/PAPA-340) now needs real post-change PR
workflow evidence, not local inference, to compare against the May 15,
2026 baseline and decide whether phase-2 work is still justified.
> - This pull request publishes the already-implemented CI speedup
branch so GitHub can run the actual `PR` workflow against it.
> - The benefit is that CI timing decisions are based on measured runs
from the exact workflow shape we intend to ship.
## What Changed
- Split the PR workflow so `policy` fans out into separate `Typecheck +
Release Registry`, grouped `General tests`, and `Build` jobs.
- Kept the serialized server matrix, canary dry run, and e2e jobs intact
while removing the old monolithic `verify` bottleneck.
- Reworked grouped general-test execution in
`scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs` so the workflow can run balanced
non-serialized lanes.
- Replaced redundant clean-runner prebuild gates with the idempotent
`ensure-build-deps` path used by the relevant CI entrypoints.
## Verification
- `ruby -e "require 'yaml'; YAML.load_file('.github/workflows/pr.yml');
puts 'yaml-ok'"`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --dry-run`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-server --dry-run`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-workspaces-a --dry-run`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-workspaces-b --dry-run`
- `pnpm test:run:general -- --group general-workspaces-b`
- `pnpm test:run:general -- --group general-workspaces-a`
- `pnpm test:run:general -- --group general-server`
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-hello-world-example typecheck`
## Risks
- Required-check and branch-protection settings may still reference the
old single `verify` job name.
- Parallel CI lanes can expose hidden ordering assumptions or
clean-runner bootstrap gaps that local grouped dry-runs did not surface.
- Because the branch is behind current `master`, merge conflicts or
unrelated upstream drift could affect the measured runtime until the
branch is rebased.
> Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this work is CI throughput maintenance for the
existing PR verification path, not duplicate feature work.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local`, GPT-5-class coding agent
with repository read/write, shell execution, and GitHub CLI/tool use.
The runtime does not expose a more specific backend model ID in-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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for autonomous companies, so
developer throughput on the control plane repo directly affects how fast
the product can evolve.
> - The PR workflow is part of that throughput surface because every
change waits on it before review and merge.
> - This branch started from measured evidence that the PR critical path
was dominated by work that was either serialized unnecessarily or placed
on the wrong part of the graph.
> - The biggest concrete problems were: the canary dry run living inside
`verify`, the server isolated suites running one-by-one in a single
lane, and duplicate CI work that the PR path was paying for without
increasing coverage proportionally.
> - This pull request restructures the PR workflow so those costs are
reduced without removing the important coverage that was already
protecting release and test quality.
> - Follow-up fixes on the branch hardened the new entrypoints so they
work on clean GitHub runners and so the reduced PR typecheck path stays
self-maintaining as workspace packages evolve.
> - The benefit is materially faster PR wall-clock time while keeping
canary packaging checks, serialized-suite isolation, plugin SDK
consumers, and explicit TypeScript coverage where builds do not already
provide it.
## What Changed
- Moved the PR canary dry run into its own `Canary Dry Run` job so it
still runs on PRs but no longer extends the `verify` critical path.
- Split the custom Vitest runner into `general`, `serialized`, and `all`
modes, and added shard support for the isolated server suites.
- Added `test:run:general` and `test:run:serialized` scripts, then
rewired PR CI to fan the serialized server suites out across a 4-way
matrix.
- Added the required `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` build preflight before
the new reduced-scope typecheck and test entrypoints so they succeed on
clean CI runners.
- Replaced the hardcoded PR build-gap list with
`scripts/run-typecheck-build-gaps.mjs`, which discovers workspace
packages whose `build` scripts skip TypeScript and runs only their
explicit `typecheck` scripts.
- Removed the redundant `pnpm build` from the PR `e2e` job because the
Playwright onboarding path boots Paperclip from source.
## Verification
- `ruby -e "require 'yaml'; YAML.load_file('.github/workflows/pr.yml');
puts 'workflow ok'"`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --dry-run`
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode serialized --shard-index 0
--shard-count 4 --dry-run`
- `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps`
- `pnpm test:run:general`
- `pnpm test:run:serialized -- --shard-index 0 --shard-count 4`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm paperclipai onboard --yes --run`
- `curl http://127.0.0.1:3299/api/health`
## Risks
- Branch protection or required-check configuration may need to be
updated for the new standalone `Canary Dry Run` job and the
serialized-suite matrix job names.
- `scripts/run-typecheck-build-gaps.mjs` assumes packages that need
explicit PR-time typechecking are the ones whose `build` scripts omit
`tsc`; if build conventions change, that heuristic needs to stay
aligned.
- Serialized test sharding preserves per-suite isolation, but the first
few CI runs should still be watched for shard-balance or naming
assumptions in downstream tooling.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5.4 via the Codex local adapter, using high reasoning
effort with shell, git, and file-edit tool use in a local worktree.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous agent companies, so its
release automation is part of the core operator trust boundary.
> - The affected subsystem is npm/GitHub Actions release publishing for
the public monorepo packages.
> - The concrete failure was that a newly added package reached
`master`, the canary workflow attempted its first publish, and npm
trusted publishing was not yet bootstrapped for that package.
> - That means the problem is not just one broken run; it is a missing
pre-merge guard that lets release-ineligible packages land and only fail
once `publish_canary` runs.
> - This pull request makes release enrollment explicit, validates that
enrollment in CI, and adds a PR-time bootstrap check against npm for
changed release-enabled package manifests.
> - The result is that we keep trusted publishing, avoid teaching CI to
`npm adduser`, and move this class of failure from post-merge canary
time to pre-merge review time.
## What Changed
- Added `scripts/release-package-manifest.json` so release-managed
public packages are explicitly enrolled instead of being inferred from
every non-private workspace package.
- Hardened `scripts/release-package-map.mjs` to validate the manifest
before release workflows rewrite versions or assemble publish payloads.
- Added `scripts/check-release-package-bootstrap.mjs` and wired it into
`.github/workflows/pr.yml` so PRs that change a release-enabled package
manifest fail if that package does not already exist on npm.
- Added release-package manifest coverage tests to
`scripts/release-package-map.test.mjs` and included them in `pnpm run
test:release-registry`.
- Wired manifest validation into `.github/workflows/release.yml` and
documented the first-publish bootstrap policy in `doc/PUBLISHING.md` and
`doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md`.
## Verification
- `pnpm run test:release-registry`
- `./scripts/release.sh canary --skip-verify --dry-run`
- Confirmed the committed diff contains no obvious PII/secrets via
targeted pattern scan before pushing.
## Risks
- Low risk overall: this is CI/release-policy code, not product runtime
logic.
- The new PR bootstrap check depends on npm metadata availability, so a
transient npm outage could block a PR that changes a release-enabled
package manifest.
- The manifest introduces a new source of truth that must stay aligned
with public package additions, but that is intentional and now enforced.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex via the `codex_local` Paperclip adapter; GPT-5-based
coding agent with tool use, terminal execution, git, and GitHub CLI.
Exact served model ID/context window are not exposed by the local
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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip’s PR workflow is part of the control-plane safety surface
because it decides whether a branch is allowed to merge.
> - This issue started in that workflow: the lockfile and manifest
policy checks were diffing `base.sha..head.sha`, which incorrectly
treated unrelated `master` commits as if they belonged to the PR branch.
> - The right fix there is to diff from the PR merge base
(`base...head`) so policy checks only evaluate files introduced by the
branch itself.
> - Once that workflow fix was in place, `/checkpr` exposed a second
blocker on the PR merge ref: `verify` was failing in newer `master`-side
tests that were not part of the original branch diff.
> - The actionable repeated failure came from the ACPX local adapter
test suite, where a test hard-coded the managed Codex home under
`instances/default` even though the stable Vitest runner sets a
non-default `PAPERCLIP_INSTANCE_ID`.
> - This pull request now includes both the original CI diff-scope fix
and the targeted ACPX test fix so the PR’s actual checks align with
current base-branch execution.
> - The benefit is that the original false-positive lockfile failure is
removed, and the merge-ref verify path is hardened against the
instance-id isolation used in CI.
## What Changed
- Updated `.github/workflows/pr.yml` so the lockfile policy and manifest
policy steps diff `pull_request.base.sha...pull_request.head.sha` from
the merge base instead of using a two-dot base/head diff.
- Added an inline workflow comment explaining why the three-dot diff is
required for PR-scoped file detection.
- Updated `packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/server/execute.test.ts` so
the managed Codex home assertion uses a test-specific
`PAPERCLIP_INSTANCE_ID` instead of hard-coding `default`.
- Restored `PAPERCLIP_INSTANCE_ID` after that ACPX test finishes so the
test remains isolated and does not leak process env changes.
## Verification
- Reproduced the original false positive locally by comparing PR heads
`#4901` and `#4902` with the old `base..head` logic; both incorrectly
included `pnpm-lock.yaml` from unrelated `master` commits.
- Verified the new `base...head` logic reduces those PRs to only their
actual changed files and excludes `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
- Verified a real manifest-changing PR (`#4893`) still reports
`package.json` changes under the new logic.
- Ran `pnpm -r typecheck` successfully.
- Ran `pnpm vitest run
packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/server/execute.test.ts` successfully
after the ACPX test fix.
- Ran `pnpm vitest run packages/db/src/backup-lib.test.ts` successfully
against the merge-ref-related DB failure path observed during
`/checkpr`.
- Pushed commit `9520a976` and allowed PR `#4903` checks to rerun on the
updated branch.
## Risks
- Low risk: the workflow change only affects how PR policy checks
determine the changed file set.
- Low risk: the ACPX change is test-only and aligns the test with the
instance-isolation behavior already used by
`scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs` in CI.
- The remaining operational risk is limited to other unrelated
merge-ref-only failures that were not reproduced in the targeted local
verification above.
> 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-codex`, via the Codex local adapter in Paperclip.
- Tool-using coding model with shell execution, git, GitHub CLI, and
repository inspection in a local worktree.
- Context included the current repo, the Paperclip task thread, PR check
output, and the isolated execution workspace.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Devin Foley
Dotta
dependabot[bot]
Tonio
Nicky Leach