## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses browser tests to protect critical operator flows.
> - The trusted pull request workflow runs the E2E catalog on three
existing runners.
> - Smoke Lab was one 168-second spec, so the shard scheduler could not
divide it.
> - The spec also repeated service-start calls, page loads, and
full-page screenshots.
> - This pull request removes that repeated work and divides the
scenario catalog into two independent specs.
> - The benefit is a shorter Smoke Lab run and a balanced E2E lane
without more AWS capacity.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: #10629
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves the trusted pull request E2E lane and its Smoke Lab
Playwright coverage.
**Current behavior**
Smoke Lab is one indivisible 168-second CI spec. It starts services for
every scenario, loads the same evidence page twice, and captures a
full-page success screenshot for all 56 lifecycle steps.
**Proposed behavior**
Start Smoke Lab services once per spec. Keep the per-scenario fixture
reset. Capture one representative success screenshot per scenario and
keep every failure screenshot. Run P1–P4 and P5–P7 as separate specs so
the existing duration-aware scheduler can put them on different runners.
**Reason and benefit**
The optimized lifecycle reduced local Smoke Lab wall time from 57.68
seconds to 37.04 seconds. This is a 35.8% reduction. The two halves also
let the existing three runners target about 125, 124, and 124 seconds of
recorded spec work instead of about 168, 125, and 124 seconds.
**Breaking changes**
None. The same seven scenarios and eight lifecycle steps still run. The
result API still records every step. Successful non-connect steps no
longer attach redundant screenshots.
## What Changed
- Reused one Smoke Lab service start within each spec while retaining
isolated fixture installation for every scenario.
- Removed the duplicate catalog evidence navigation.
- Reduced success screenshots from 56 to 7 while retaining screenshots
for every failed step.
- Split the shared lifecycle runner into P1–P4 and P5–P7 specs.
- Mark each successful split result as partial and keep dashboard health
amber until one run covers the full catalog.
- Updated the duration manifest and contributor docs for the split.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on Node.js 24.20.0.
- `pnpm build` passed on Node.js 24.20.0.
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` passed 9 tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/tools/smoke-lab-matrix.test.ts`
passed 8 tests.
- Both split specs passed together on Node.js 24.20.0 after the review
fixes: 2 passed in 35.7 seconds; shell wall time was 36.86 seconds.
- The pre-change Smoke Lab baseline passed with a 57.68-second shell
wall time. The optimized unsplit A/B run passed with a 37.04-second
shell wall time.
- The full local E2E catalog passed 44 tests and skipped 2 tests. One
existing `pipelines-tutorial-flow.spec.ts` assertion failed again when
run alone.
- The broad local unit run reproduced failures in untouched
workspace-runtime suites. Typecheck, build, shard tests, and all changed
browser coverage pass. CI remains the authoritative full-suite result.
## Risks
- The split duration weights use the measured local reduction and the
previous 168-second CI weight. They should be refreshed after two real
pull request runs.
- Service state is shared within each half. Fixture installation still
runs before every scenario to reset connection, policy, and catalog
state.
- Each half records passed execution with partial coverage. Dashboard
health recognizes the partial flag and stays amber because no single
runner covers the full catalog. A failed half still records failed/red.
- Fewer success screenshots reduce redundant artifacts. Every scenario
keeps its connect screenshot, and every failure still captures evidence.
> 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. The exact deployment ID and context window are
not exposed in this session. The model used agentic reasoning, code
editing, shell execution, browser testing, and GitHub tools.
## 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 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>
Dotta
Devin Foley