## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - ACP agents can request permission before reads, process execution,
and workspace mutation.
> - The runner must apply the configured policy without allowing
provider display text to grant authority.
> - Runner-owned semantic tools already have a separate run-scoped
authorization catalog.
> - This pull request defines the local permission decision and the
narrow metadata needed to recognize those authorized tools.
> - The benefit is a fail-closed permission boundary before an ACPX
process can use it.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Agent or provider**
Qualified Pi, Claude, and Codex ACP servers through the internal ACPX
driver.
**Why this adapter is useful**
ACP providers use permission requests for both ordinary provider
operations and runner-owned semantic operations. Paperclip must apply
`approve-all`, `approve-reads`, or `deny-all` consistently while keeping
semantic authorization bound to structural MCP metadata.
**How the agent is invoked**
A later pull request will install this policy in the private ACPX
runtime host. This pull request does not launch a provider, add a
dependency, register an adapter, or change runtime selection.
**Additional context**
This pull request is stacked on #12390. Pi uses a different bridge and
never receives semantic auto-approval through this ACP permission path.
## What Changed
- Map each ACPX permission mode to a closed runtime policy.
- Decide local allow, reject, or coordinator delegation outcomes.
- Auto-approve only runner-owned semantic MCP calls identified by
structural metadata.
- Ignore provider display titles when determining semantic authority.
- Limit Codex blanket MCP approval to sessions where every configured
MCP server is runner-owned.
- Add table-driven tests for all modes, agents, metadata shapes, spoofed
titles, and non-runner servers.
## Verification
- Runner TypeScript typecheck — passed.
- Runner TypeScript tests — passed, including 10 new permission-policy
assertions.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all applicable workspaces.
- `pnpm build` — passed, including runner binary, server, UI, and
workspace packages.
- Prettier and `git diff --check` — passed.
- The diff contains 2 files and does not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`, a
workflow, a dependency, a public export, server selection, or UI
behavior.
## Risks
The main risk is mistaking a provider-controlled label for an authorized
semantic tool. The implementation ignores display titles and requires a
runner-owned MCP server name, a transport tool name, or provider
metadata. All other `approve-reads` mutations delegate to the
coordinator, and the caller must reject them when no delegate exists.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked an existing public item or described the
issue in this 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 task
identifier
- [x] I have run the affected tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have documented the permission and semantic-authorization
boundary
- [ ] All applicable GitHub Actions are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with every actionable comment resolved
- [x] I will address all review findings before requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - A native driver must declare its supported behavior before the
coordinator can select it.
> - ACP-compatible agents do not all expose the same event families.
> - A loose config could also select an unqualified model, permission
policy, or executable field.
> - This pull request defines the ACPX descriptor, capability matrix,
and strict configuration parser.
> - The benefit is one reviewable admission contract before any ACPX
runtime is wired.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Agent or provider**
Qualified Pi, Claude, and Codex ACP servers through the internal ACPX
driver.
**Why this adapter is useful**
The runner needs a truthful capability descriptor and a closed
configuration boundary before it can create an ACPX session. The
boundary must reject arbitrary commands and unqualified models.
**How the agent is invoked**
A later pull request will implement the private runtime behind this
descriptor. This pull request does not launch a process, add a
dependency, register an adapter, or make ACPX selectable.
**Additional context**
This pull request is stacked on #12389. Pi reports plan events as
unsupported. Claude and Codex report structured plan support.
## What Changed
- Add the ACPX driver descriptor and native runtime-context capability
declaration.
- Add an agent-specific typed event capability matrix.
- Add strict config validation for agent, exact qualified model, and
permission mode.
- Default the permission mode to `approve-all` when the field is absent.
- Reject non-object config, unknown fields, unqualified models, and
unsupported permission values.
- Add table-driven tests for all qualified agents and failure cases.
## Verification
- Runner TypeScript typecheck — passed.
- Runner TypeScript tests — passed, including 8 new driver-profile
assertions.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all applicable workspaces.
- `pnpm build` — passed, including runner binary, server, UI, and
workspace packages.
- Prettier and `git diff --check` — passed.
- The diff contains 2 files and does not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`, a
workflow, a dependency, a public export, server selection, or UI
behavior.
## Risks
The main risk is advertising a capability that a qualified ACP server
cannot supply. The matrix is explicit per agent, and tests cover the one
current difference. Config validation rejects unknown fields so a caller
cannot smuggle an executable or an unsupported runtime setting into this
boundary.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked an existing public item or described the
issue in this 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 task
identifier
- [x] I have run the affected tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have documented the compatibility and admission boundary
- [ ] All applicable GitHub Actions are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with every actionable comment resolved
- [x] I will address all review findings before requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - An ACPX sidecar will read asynchronous commands from one ordered
input stream.
> - Concurrent command handling could reorder bootstrap, turn, suspend,
and shutdown operations.
> - A failed diagnostic callback could also poison the input promise and
skip later frames.
> - This pull request adds a small serial queue and records the first
provider-bootstrap failure.
> - The benefit is deterministic input ordering and a stable fail-closed
bootstrap state before the sidecar exists.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Agent or provider**
The internal ACPX sidecar for qualified ACP-compatible providers.
**Why this adapter is useful**
The sidecar must process input frames in order. It must drain accepted
input before shutdown, continue after an ordinary command error, and
reject dependent commands after initialization or session bootstrap
fails.
**How the agent is invoked**
A later pull request will connect this helper to a private sidecar
process. This pull request adds no executable, dependency, adapter
registration, or process launch.
**Additional context**
This pull request is stacked on #12388. The helper remains package-local
and does not affect direct adapters.
## What Changed
- Add a serial asynchronous input queue that remains usable after
operation and diagnostic failures.
- Add ACPX-specific input sequencing around the shared queue.
- Preserve the first `initialize` or `session.open` failure as the
bootstrap cause.
- Produce a deterministic blocked-command error after bootstrap fails.
- Test ordering, EOF-style draining, error isolation, sticky bootstrap
failure, and non-sticky turn failure.
## Verification
- Runner TypeScript typecheck — passed.
- Runner TypeScript tests — passed, including 4 new sequencing tests.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all applicable workspaces.
- `pnpm build` — passed, including runner binary, server, UI, and
workspace packages.
- Prettier and `git diff --check` — passed.
- The diff contains 3 files and does not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`, a
workflow, a dependency, a public export, server selection, or UI
behavior.
## Risks
The main risk is allowing one failed input operation to reorder or
suppress later input. Each operation runs only after the previous
promise settles. Both operation and diagnostic failures are contained.
Bootstrap failure is recorded separately so an ordinary turn failure
does not disable the sidecar session.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked an existing public item or described the
issue in this 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 task
identifier
- [x] I have run the affected tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have documented the compatibility and failure boundary
- [ ] All applicable GitHub Actions are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with every actionable comment resolved
- [x] I will address all review findings before requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The runner uses one provider-neutral question contract for user
input.
> - ACP providers describe form input with provider-specific JSON Schema
values.
> - Passing those values through would couple the task page to ACP and
could bypass the existing response validator.
> - This pull request converts bounded ACP forms to the existing
Paperclip question contract and converts validated answers back to ACP
content.
> - The benefit is one question path that does not change any legacy
adapter behavior.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Agent or provider**
ACP-compatible providers that use form elicitation.
**Why this adapter is useful**
ACP providers need structured user answers during a turn. Paperclip must
present those questions through its provider-neutral contract so the
existing task experience and validation rules remain consistent.
**How the agent is invoked**
A later pull request will connect this internal adapter to the ACPX
sidecar. This pull request only implements the conversion boundary. It
does not launch ACPX, add a dependency, or enable an adapter.
**Additional context**
This pull request is stacked on #12387. URL elicitation remains
unsupported and returns no form projection.
## What Changed
- Convert bounded ACP string, enum, multi-select, Boolean, number, and
integer fields to `paperclip.question_set.v1`.
- Validate every answer with the existing provider-neutral response
parser before conversion.
- Convert validated answers back to typed ACP form content.
- Bound provider-controlled field and option inventories.
- Use stable question identities and define arbitrary property names
without prototype mutation.
- Keep ACP runtime types and dependencies outside this package-local
conversion boundary.
## Verification
- Runner TypeScript typecheck — passed.
- Runner TypeScript tests — 41 files and 367 Vitest tests passed; 12
Node contract tests passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all applicable workspaces.
- `pnpm build` — passed, including runner binary, server, UI, and
workspace packages.
- Prettier and `git diff --check` — passed.
- The diff contains 2 files and does not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`, a
workflow, a package dependency, a public export, server selection, or UI
behavior.
## Risks
The main risk is accepting an ACP form that cannot be represented safely
by the Paperclip question contract. Unsupported field types fail closed.
Field and option inventories are bounded. The existing question parser
validates all text, selection, numeric, and required-field constraints
before any response returns to ACP.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked an existing public item or described the
issue in this 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 task
identifier
- [x] I have run the affected tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have documented the compatibility and security boundary
- [ ] All applicable GitHub Actions are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with every actionable comment resolved
- [x] I will address all review findings before requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Paperclip runner needs a safe boundary before it can launch
ACP-compatible agents.
> - A caller-controlled command, model, environment, or frame could
bypass that boundary.
> - The ACPX transport contract in #12386 defines the allowed messages
but does not bind a runtime profile.
> - This pull request defines closed, versioned profiles and validates
the launch inputs around that contract.
> - The benefit is a small and reviewable trust boundary before any ACPX
process can become available.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Agent or provider**
ACPX sidecar support for the qualified Pi, Claude, and Codex ACP
servers.
**Why this adapter is useful**
The runner needs one bounded process boundary for ACP-compatible
providers. A closed profile prevents an untrusted run from selecting an
arbitrary executable, package version, or model.
**How the agent is invoked**
A later pull request will launch an internal sidecar from an exact
profile. This pull request only validates profiles, environment values,
and protocol frames. It does not add an executable dependency or enable
an adapter.
**Additional context**
This pull request is stacked on #12386. It keeps the existing direct
adapters and the Codex runner path unchanged.
## What Changed
- Add a closed profile table for the qualified Pi, Claude, and Codex ACP
servers.
- Require the exact qualified model and return an isolated profile value
to callers.
- Add an agent-specific environment allowlist with entry and aggregate
size limits.
- Add strict parsing for bounded sidecar requests and structured plan
values.
- Reject unknown fields, unsupported protocol versions, invalid
identifiers, null bytes, cyclic values, and oversized input.
## Verification
- Runner TypeScript typecheck — passed.
- Runner TypeScript tests — 40 files and 362 Vitest tests passed; 11
Node contract tests passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all applicable workspaces.
- `pnpm build` — passed, including runner binary, server, UI, and
workspace packages.
- Prettier and `git diff --check` — passed.
- The diff contains 6 files and does not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`, a
workflow, a package dependency, or a public export.
## Risks
The main risk is accepting more launch state than the sidecar needs. The
implementation uses an agent-specific allowlist, rejects null bytes, and
enforces per-entry and aggregate bounds. This pull request does not
launch a process or expose a new adapter, so production and
direct-adapter behavior remain unchanged.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked an existing public item or described the
issue in this 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 task
identifier
- [x] I have run the affected tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have documented the compatibility and security boundary
- [ ] All applicable GitHub Actions are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with every actionable comment resolved
- [x] I will address all review findings before requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip Runner now has a complete guarded Codex vertical slice.
> - The next provider series must not start by importing a provider
implementation or dependency bundle.
> - ACPX needs one bounded, versioned process boundary shared by
TypeScript and Rust.
> - A schema is the authority; checked-in generated inventories keep
both languages in lockstep.
> - Unknown versions, commands, event types, and properties must fail
closed.
> - This pull request therefore lands only the sidecar wire contract and
its drift gate.
> - No ACPX runtime, dependency, executable, package export, or
production selection is added.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This is the first package-local unit in the post-Codex provider series.
**What happened?**
The integration branch contains an ACPX provider, but its TypeScript
sidecar and Rust client need a small shared authority before either
implementation can be reviewed safely. Importing the final integration
implementation directly would mix the protocol, runtime, third-party
dependencies, and production wiring.
**Expected behavior**
The schema defines every ACPX sidecar request, response, event, command,
event type, and protocol version. Generated TypeScript and Rust
inventories must drift-check against that schema. No runtime can select
or execute ACPX yet.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Change the protocol version, command inventory, or event inventory in
the schema.
2. Run the runner protocol type check without regenerating the language
inventories.
3. Observe the drift gate fail.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Stacked on `runner-server-semantic-codex` at `ebd7f9df7`.
## What Changed
- Add the internal ACPX sidecar v2 JSON Schema outside the public PRP v1
schema catalog.
- Generate one TypeScript inventory and one Rust inventory from that
schema.
- Add generate and check hooks to the existing runner protocol-type
workflow.
- Add fail-closed AJV tests for all three message families, version
drift, unknown commands, and extra properties.
- Keep the generated Rust module unregistered until the Rust ACPX
transport exists.
## Compatibility Boundary
- Codex remains the only production runner provider.
- `paperclip_runner` selection and the default-off rollout flag are
unchanged.
- No ACPX package, patch, lockfile, binary entry point, root export,
server file, UI file, workflow, or dependency is added.
- The schema is shipped with the existing `protocol` directory but is
not added to the public PRP manifest.
- Existing direct adapters continue through their current paths.
- Diff against the actual stacked base: 6 files.
## Verification
- Runner TypeScript typecheck and both generated-contract drift gates —
passed.
- Runner TypeScript tests — 37 files and 355 Vitest tests passed; 11
Node contract tests passed.
- Rust provider-bridge regression suite after restacking — 14/14 passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all applicable workspaces.
- `pnpm build` — passed, including runner binary, server, UI, and
workspace packages.
- `pnpm test:run` — attempted; the local host reproduced unrelated
workspace/Postgres and port-exposure failures in unchanged server
suites. The changed runner contract suites pass, and the repository's
serialized/sharded GitHub checks remain authoritative for those
host-sensitive suites.
- Prettier, rustfmt, generated-source drift checks, and `git diff
--check` — passed.
- `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged.
## Risks
The main risk is allowing schema and generated language inventories to
diverge. Build and typecheck now fail on any drift. The sidecar
implementation and third-party ACPX packages are deliberately absent, so
this PR cannot alter runtime behavior or expand the production attack
surface.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 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 (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
- [x] I have described the issue and expected behavior in this 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 task
identifier
- [x] I have run the affected tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have documented the compatibility and security boundary
- [ ] All applicable GitHub Actions are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with every actionable comment resolved
- [x] I will address all review findings before requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The hidden native coordinator already computes a run-scoped semantic
tool projection.
> - The durable Codex backend now accepts and enforces that projection.
> - The server did not include the projection in its `run.prepare`
command.
> - Codex therefore received no production semantic tools even when the
server authorized them.
> - This pull request adds the deterministic wire projection and sends
it to runnerd.
> - The benefit is one fail-closed authorization catalog from the server
through Codex.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12384
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves the existing flagged Paperclip Runner Codex path.
**Current behavior**
The server creates a run-scoped list of authorized read tools. It does
not pass that list to runnerd, so the production Codex session starts
with no tools.
**Proposed behavior**
The server maps the authorized definitions to the versioned runner
contract. It computes a cross-language catalog digest. It includes that
immutable contract in `run.prepare`.
**Reason and benefit**
Runnerd and the server now enforce the same catalog identity. Unknown,
duplicate, changed, or malformed tool contracts fail before Codex can
use them.
**Breaking changes**
None. Direct adapters are unchanged. A native run with an empty server
projection still starts with no dynamic tools.
## What Changed
- Add a deterministic semantic-definition to runner-authorization
projection.
- Match the Rust canonical digest with a shared test vector.
- Include the server coordinator projection in the native Codex
`run.prepare` command.
- Extend the native Codex vertical slice to require and execute a
semantic tool.
- Verify the production prepare payload in a host-independent server
test.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` (354
tests pass)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/services/native-runtime/native-codex-runner.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The embedded-Postgres vertical slice is present for CI. This local
host reports that embedded Postgres is unavailable, so Vitest skips that
host-dependent test locally.
- Confirmed that the PR changes 7 files against
`runner-codex-durable-tools`.
- Confirmed that `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged.
## Risks
The main risk is a catalog digest mismatch between TypeScript and Rust.
Both implementations use canonical JSON. They share the same fixed
digest vector. Runnerd also recomputes the digest and rejects a
mismatch.
The rollout flag and the existing native runtime selection rules remain
unchanged.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Paperclip Runner gives an agent a durable execution boundary.
> - The Codex transport can now advertise a run-scoped semantic tool
catalog.
> - The durable backend did not yet persist tool calls or correlate
their results.
> - A restart could therefore lose the boundary between a provider call
and a Paperclip action.
> - This pull request binds authorized calls, durable events, results,
replay, and cancellation.
> - The benefit is safe semantic tool recovery without duplicate
Paperclip actions.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12382
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves the durable Codex provider backend in
`@paperclipai/paperclip-runner`.
**Current behavior**
The Codex transport can project authorized dynamic tools. The durable
backend rejects their calls because it cannot persist and recover their
identities.
**Proposed behavior**
The durable backend records each authorized call before it emits the
semantic input event. It records each result before it sends the result
to Codex. It reconciles exact provider replays without another Paperclip
action.
**Reason and benefit**
This order prevents duplicate semantic actions after a process restart.
It also keeps unauthorized, changed, oversized, and late calls closed.
**Breaking changes**
None. A run without an authorized tool catalog still starts Codex with
no dynamic tools.
## What Changed
- Persist the authorized tool catalog with the Codex provider state.
- Emit correlated and redacted semantic input, reconciliation, and
result events.
- Reconcile exact pending and completed calls after a provider restart.
- Reject catalog drift, changed replay input, malformed results, and
unauthorized operations.
- Complete pending tool calls with a durable failure when a turn stops.
- Bound retained tool values and validate recovered state before
provider startup.
- Bind production runner events to the active run, session, turn, and
item identities.
## Verification
- `cargo fmt --all -- --check`
- `cargo test --workspace`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Confirmed that the PR changes 9 files against
`runner-codex-dynamic-tools`.
- Confirmed that dependency installation did not change
`pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
The main risk is a mismatch between recovered provider state and the
controller tool catalog. Recovery validates the complete catalog and its
digest before Codex starts. The backend persists a call before it emits
work and persists a result before it returns the result to Codex.
This PR does not enable the server adapter or change any direct adapter
path.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Operators edit each agent instruction bundle in the agent detail
page
> - The rich Markdown editor can normalize content and emit an onChange
event while it mounts
> - Paperclip treated that editor event as a user edit and retained the
dirty state after the tab unmounted
> - This pull request accepts rich-editor changes only after real user
interaction and clears shared edit state when the instructions tab
closes
> - The benefit is that opening instructions or moving between agent
tabs no longer shows false save controls or navigation warnings
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Opening an agent Instructions page could mark the page as edited without
user input. The page showed Save and Cancel controls and warned about
unsaved changes during unrelated tab navigation. The shared edit
callbacks could remain active after the Instructions tab unmounted.
**Expected behavior**
Opening an instruction file must not create a draft. Save controls and
navigation warnings must appear only after a user changes content.
Leaving the Instructions tab must clear its shared dirty, saving, save,
and cancel state.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open an agent Instructions tab with a Markdown entry file.
2. Do not edit the file.
3. Move to another agent tab or navigate away.
4. Observe false save controls or an unsaved-changes prompt.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Current `master` before this change.
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server and local development.
## What Changed
- Ignore rich Markdown editor normalization events until keyboard,
pointer, paste, input, drop, or before-input interaction occurs.
- Reset the interaction guard when the selected file, agent, or
persisted content changes.
- Clear the parent dirty, saving, save, and cancel state when the
Instructions tab unmounts.
- Add regression tests for mount normalization and cross-tab state
cleanup.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/AgentDetail.instructions.test.tsx
src/pages/AgentDetail.liveRun.test.ts
src/pages/AgentDetail.progress.test.ts
src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx` — 76 tests passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm build` — passed.
- `pnpm test:run` — the relevant UI tests passed. The local full runner
reproduced unrelated workspace-runtime failures present on `master`;
GitHub CI is the authoritative isolated full-suite gate.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — the changed files are clean. The command
reports nine existing color literals in
`ui/src/components/onboarding/PillGuy.tsx` from `master`.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change affects only local instruction-editor dirty-state
tracking.
- The interaction guard covers keyboard, pointer, paste, input, drop,
and before-input events.
- There are no API, database, migration, or visual design changes.
> 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 family. The deployment model identifier and
context-window size are not exposed in this session. The agent used
reasoning, repository tools, shell execution, and test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The native runner keeps provider execution separate from Paperclip
tool authority.
> - The Rust authorization bridge can now validate a run-scoped semantic
tool catalog.
> - Codex still needs a bounded protocol adapter for that validated
catalog.
> - The adapter must advertise the same catalog after provider recovery.
> - The adapter must reject unadvertised calls and mismatched results.
> - This pull request adds that Codex-only transport boundary.
> - The benefit is a fail-closed provider bridge that remains inactive
until durable wiring supplies tools.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/paperclip-runner` and its Rust Codex app-server provider.
**Problem or motivation**
The native runner has a validated semantic tool catalog, but the Rust
Codex provider cannot project that catalog or correlate Codex tool calls
with Paperclip results. A resumed Codex thread also needs the same
run-scoped catalog.
**Proposed solution**
Add an explicit Codex start path that accepts validated tools. Send
those tools through `dynamicTools` for both thread start and thread
resume. Validate thread, turn, call, operation, result identity, and
size before data crosses the provider boundary.
**Roadmap alignment**
This work supports the shipped governed MCP Tool Gateway and
self-healing run milestones. It does not add a user-facing adapter or
enable the experimental runner.
## What Changed
- Add a Codex dynamic-tool projection for explicit authorized tool sets.
- Advertise the same tool set on new and resumed provider threads.
- Correlate bounded Codex tool calls and Paperclip semantic results.
- Reject calls outside the active thread or turn, unadvertised tools,
reused request identities, mismatched results, and oversized values.
- Keep the current durable backend on the zero-tool path until the next
wiring change.
- Extend the fake Codex app server and integration tests for success,
recovery, denial, and correlation behavior.
## Verification
- `cargo test --manifest-path
packages/paperclip-runner/runner/Cargo.toml --workspace`
- `cargo clippy --manifest-path
packages/paperclip-runner/runner/Cargo.toml --workspace --all-targets --
-D warnings -A clippy::manual_is_multiple_of -A
clippy::filter_map_bool_then`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The PR changes 4 files relative to `runner-rust-semantic-tool-bridge`.
## Risks
Low activation risk. The existing `CodexProvider::start` path still
supplies an empty tool set. The durable backend treats a tool event as
an error until a later PR attaches the durable authorization bridge. The
new transport rejects unknown tools and invalid provider bindings.
> 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 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The runner package has a reviewed semantic action catalog and
dispatcher
> - The Rust runner process needs the same fail-closed authorization
boundary
> - Provider calls must remain correlated and idempotent across durable
recovery
> - Input and result values must satisfy the authorized operation
schemas
> - This pull request adds a package-local durable semantic tool bridge
> - It does not advertise tools to Codex or enable the Paperclip Runner
adapter
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/paperclip-runner/runner` semantic tool authorization and
correlation.
**Problem or motivation**
The Rust runner needs a durable representation of the run-scoped tools
that the control plane authorizes. It must reject unknown operations,
catalog drift, invalid values, and conflicting duplicate calls or
results before a provider integration can use those tools.
**Proposed solution**
Add a serialized provider tool bridge. Validate the authorized catalog
and its JSON Schemas. Validate each call and result. Keep pending and
completed identities so retries are idempotent and conflicts fail
closed.
**Alternatives considered**
Trusting provider arguments would bypass the run-scoped catalog.
Validating only in TypeScript would leave the Rust process without a
recovery-safe authorization boundary. Adding provider behavior in this
pull request would make the review unit too broad.
**Roadmap alignment**
This adds a package-local safety boundary for the Codex-first runner
path. It does not enable a new adapter or change an existing direct
adapter path.
## What Changed
- Added the versioned authorized-tool, pending-call, and result
contracts.
- Added canonical SHA-256 catalog binding and drift rejection.
- Added JSON Schema compilation and input and response validation.
- Added duplicate-call and duplicate-result idempotency with conflict
rejection.
- Added bounds for catalogs, schemas, values, and retained call
identities.
- Added the Rust `jsonschema` dependency and its Cargo lock entries.
- Added focused tests for authorization, recovery, envelopes, bounds,
and conflicts.
## Verification
- `cargo fmt --manifest-path packages/paperclip-runner/runner/Cargo.toml
--all -- --check`
- `cargo test --manifest-path
packages/paperclip-runner/runner/Cargo.toml -p paperclip-runner-core`
(64 tests)
- `cargo clippy --manifest-path
packages/paperclip-runner/runner/Cargo.toml -p paperclip-runner-core
--all-targets -- -D warnings -A clippy::manual_is_multiple_of -A
clippy::filter_map_bool_then`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The repository test runner also reached unrelated server worktree
suites. Those suites fail on the current macOS worktree with database
deadlocks and filesystem fixture assumptions. This pull request does not
change those files. The applicable GitHub checks remain the handoff
authority.
## Risks
The main risks are accepting a tool that the run did not authorize and
replaying a conflicting provider result. The bridge validates the
catalog, operation identity, JSON Schema, call identity, and result
identity before it changes durable state. The new Cargo dependency is
package-local. This pull request changes no GitHub workflow and no pnpm
lockfile.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The runner package now has a Codex-only native backend
> - A native Codex process needs an isolated runtime context before it
can start safely
> - Assigned skills, local authentication, and MCP bindings cross
separate trust boundaries
> - Runtime materialization must reject symlink escapes and unsafe
remote bindings
> - This pull request adds the package-local Codex runtime context
boundary
> - It does not start runnerd or enable the Paperclip Runner adapter
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/paperclip-runner` Codex runtime context materialization.
**Problem or motivation**
The runner needs a private Codex home for each native session. It must
stage only assigned skills, copy local Codex authentication safely, and
validate native MCP bindings before it exposes them to the child
process.
**Proposed solution**
Create an isolated runtime directory. Validate the skill tree before and
after copying it. Make staged skill files read-only. Read authentication
through a no-follow file descriptor with a size bound. Accept only HTTPS
or loopback MCP endpoints and bounded tokens.
**Alternatives considered**
Using the operator Codex home directly would expose unrelated state and
skills. Following symlinks while copying skills or authentication could
escape the assigned source. Accepting arbitrary MCP URLs could send a
bearer token to an untrusted endpoint.
**Roadmap alignment**
This adds a package-local safety boundary for the reviewed Codex runner
path. It does not enable a new adapter or change an existing direct
adapter path.
## What Changed
- Added the native MCP binding contract and strict validation.
- Added isolated Codex home materialization with shell snapshots
disabled.
- Added assigned-skill staging with lexical containment and two-pass
symlink checks.
- Added read-only permissions for staged skill trees.
- Added owner-only authentication staging with no-follow reads and a
size bound.
- Added cleanup for complete and partially materialized runtime
directories.
## Verification
- The focused runtime context suite has 7 passing cases.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` (36
files, 351 tests)
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
The main risks are filesystem escape, secret exposure, and token
delivery to an unsafe endpoint. The materializer rejects symlinks before
and after skill copying, resolves existing source paths, reads
authentication with `O_NOFOLLOW`, applies private permissions, and
restricts MCP URLs to HTTPS or loopback hosts. Existing direct adapters
do not use this package-local runtime context.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The runner package now has a complete Codex session driver
> - The driver needs a package-owned construction boundary before server
code can use it
> - Persisted provider contracts must not make deferred providers
executable
> - Provider selection must fail closed when an implementation is not
included
> - This pull request adds a Codex-only native backend and factory
> - It does not expose or enable the Paperclip Runner adapter
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/paperclip-runner` native backend construction.
**Problem or motivation**
The runner needs one normalized backend seam that constructs the
reviewed Codex driver. The seam must not route OpenCode, ACPX, Claude
Managed, or AWS AgentCore through an incomplete fallback.
**Proposed solution**
Add a Codex backend constructor and a Codex-first factory. Reject every
deferred provider at the factory and provider-specific constructor
boundaries.
**Alternatives considered**
Routing all provider contracts through the Codex protocol facade would
give deferred providers runtime behavior before their implementations
are reviewed. Including all provider backends would also broaden this
pull request beyond the Codex-first series.
**Roadmap alignment**
This connects reviewed runner package layers. It does not enable a new
adapter or change an existing direct adapter path.
## What Changed
- Added the Codex native backend constructor.
- Added the Codex-first native backend factory.
- Preserved the execution contract, runtime instructions, plan
constraints, dynamic tools, transport injection, and durable identity
requirements.
- Rejected every deferred provider with an explicit error.
- Added tests for lazy transport construction and both fail-closed
boundaries.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` (35
files, 340 tests)
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The focused native backend factory suite has 3 passing cases.
## Risks
The main risk is starting the wrong provider or starting a provider
before its runtime is ready. The factory and Codex constructor both
reject non-Codex inputs. Existing direct adapters do not call this
package-local factory.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The package now has bounded Codex transport, security, question,
diff, value, and thread helpers
> - Those isolated boundaries can now be composed into one provider
session lifecycle
> - The driver must preserve controller-owned identity, results,
terminals, and recovery invariants
> - Unsupported or mismatched provider traffic must fail closed without
weakening legacy adapters
> - This pull request adds only the Codex app-server driver and its
package-local tests
> - It does not expose or enable the Paperclip Runner adapter
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/paperclip-runner` Codex app-server session driver.
**Problem or motivation**
The runner needs a production-shaped Codex session implementation that
turns provider facts into canonical PRP events while keeping task
identity, semantic completion, runtime input, and recovery under
controller authority.
**Proposed solution**
Compose the previously reviewed transport and normalization boundaries
into a Codex-only harness driver with session open/resume, turns,
streaming events, semantic tools, structured questions, goals, lineage,
usage, cancellation, reconciliation, and deterministic persisted
snapshots.
**Alternatives considered**
Keeping the full implementation in one initial transport pull request
would obscure the trust boundaries. Adding the deferred ACPX or OpenCode
paths here would also broaden the provider scope beyond the Codex-first
series.
**Roadmap alignment**
This implements the Codex provider slice inside the package. It does not
enable the runner adapter or change any existing direct adapter path.
## What Changed
- Added the Codex app-server harness driver and session lifecycle.
- Added controller-bound semantic completion and terminal handling.
- Added runtime requests, structured questions, goals, lineage, usage,
steering, interruption, and recovery.
- Added workspace diff and file-reference projection.
- Connected bounded/redacted provider data and notification identity
checks.
- Kept deferred provider identities and replacement behavior out of the
Codex-only driver.
- Added 62 focused driver cases covering lifecycle, security, recovery,
and protocol failures.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` (34
files, 337 tests)
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The focused Codex driver suite has 62 passing cases.
## Risks
The main risks are accepting provider events from the wrong session,
duplicating terminal facts, retaining unsafe provider data, or resuming
a different session. Tests cover pre-turn, cross-thread, stale-turn,
post-terminal, duplicate-result, cancellation, transport loss, provider
identity, workspace, redaction, structured input, and recovery cases.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Codex driver needs a controller-owned oracle for semantic
completion and replay
> - Provider proposals are advisory and must satisfy the exact task
envelope
> - Persisted events must be bounded and validated before deterministic
replay
> - Live provider behaviors also need one checked-in, schema-validated
fixture
> - This pull request adds that test and conformance layer before the
full driver
> - The runner adapter remains disabled and no production execution path
changes
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/paperclip-runner` Codex trace, result-validation, and replay
conformance.
**Problem or motivation**
A provider-completed turn is not sufficient authority to finalize a
Paperclip run. Results must match the controller-owned completion
contract, and persisted provider events must be validated before they
can rebuild controller state.
**Proposed solution**
Add a bounded Codex trace harness that validates result proposals, emits
controller decisions and terminals, verifies live/replay parity, and
rejects malformed persisted streams. Add a validated fixture for runtime
requests, goals, lineage, controls, reconnect identity, and redaction
cases.
**Alternatives considered**
Embedding these assertions only in the production driver would mix
controller authority with provider transport behavior and make
deterministic replay harder to review.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the Codex-first experimental runner. It does not enable
the runner adapter or add another provider.
## What Changed
- Added exact task-envelope result validation.
- Added bounded persisted-event validation and deterministic replay.
- Added a controller-owned Codex trace harness and parity assertions.
- Added and validated the checked-in Live console conformance fixture.
- Updated the generated protocol manifest with the fixture source.
- Added focused result and fixture tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The focused trace-conformance test has 2 passing cases.
## Risks
The main risks are accepting a mismatched semantic result or replaying
corrupted provider history. Validation covers schema, contract revision,
criteria identity, disposition invariants, event identity, uniqueness,
ordering, terminal count, and byte limits.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Runner replies can refer to files produced inside an assigned
workspace
> - The task page needs stable file metadata without trusting arbitrary
Markdown paths
> - File verification must stay within the canonical workspace even
through symlinks
> - Reads and previews also need strict count and byte bounds
> - This pull request adds that provider-neutral file-reference boundary
> - A later pull request will connect it to the Codex session driver
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/paperclip-runner` workspace file-reference discovery.
**Problem or motivation**
Assistant-authored Markdown can contain external, absolute, escaping, or
symlinked paths. Reading those paths directly could disclose files
outside the assigned workspace or retain unbounded content.
**Proposed solution**
Parse a bounded set of local Markdown references, normalize them
relative to the workspace, verify canonical paths before reading, reject
symlink escapes, and retain bounded previews plus content digests.
**Alternatives considered**
Leaving path handling inside a provider driver would duplicate a
security-sensitive boundary and make it harder to test independently.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the Codex-first experimental runner and future
provider-neutral task projection. It does not enable the runner adapter.
## What Changed
- Added stable workspace file-reference records.
- Added local Markdown link extraction and path normalization.
- Added canonical-path and symlink-escape checks.
- Added bounded file reads, previews, and SHA-256 digests.
- Added focused path, preview, and symlink tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The focused workspace-reference test has 3 passing cases.
## Risks
The main risk is reading outside the assigned workspace or retaining
excessive data. Tests cover absolute and external paths, symlink
escapes, preview bounds, and deterministic metadata.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Codex thread state arrives as provider-specific goals, lineage,
notifications, and workspace paths
> - That data must be normalized before the full driver can retain or
project it
> - Notifications also need run and thread binding so unrelated provider
traffic is ignored
> - This pull request adds pure normalization helpers before the full
driver
> - A later pull request will use these helpers for the Codex session
lifecycle
> - The benefit is a small, independently tested trust boundary for
thread state
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/paperclip-runner` Codex thread-state normalization.
**Problem or motivation**
Provider thread data can contain unsupported goal shapes, unrelated
notifications, unsafe workspace paths, or unbounded response values.
Passing it through directly would weaken run isolation and durable-data
bounds.
**Proposed solution**
Normalize goals and lineage into stable runner shapes, accept
notifications only when their run and thread identities match, constrain
workspace references to the assigned root, and retain only bounded safe
provider responses.
**Alternatives considered**
Keeping these rules embedded in the full driver would make the trust
boundary harder to review and test independently.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the Codex-first experimental runner. It does not enable
the runner adapter.
## What Changed
- Added normalized Codex thread goals and lineage.
- Added run- and thread-bound notification filtering.
- Added safe workspace-relative path and stat projection.
- Added bounded provider-response retention.
- Added focused normalization and isolation tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The focused thread-normalization test has 3 passing cases.
## Risks
The main risk is retaining data from the wrong provider thread or
accepting an unsafe workspace reference. Tests cover identity binding,
path normalization, response bounds, goal parsing, and lineage
projection.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Provider data crosses workspace, event, trace, and tool-result
boundaries
> - Codex payloads can contain large or protected values
> - The runner also needs to reject unsafe working directories
> - This pull request adds pure boundary helpers before the full driver
> - A later pull request will use these helpers for Codex event handling
> - The benefit is bounded and redacted provider data with focused tests
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/paperclip-runner` Codex value and workspace boundaries.
**Problem or motivation**
Raw provider payloads can exceed durable limits or contain credentials.
An invalid working directory can expose host state or escape the
assigned workspace.
**Proposed solution**
Validate the workspace against host and assignment roots. Bound retained
values by depth, count, string length, and byte size. Redact protected
keys and diagnostic credentials.
**Alternatives considered**
Keeping these checks inside the driver would make them harder to review
and reuse at every provider-data boundary.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the Codex-first experimental runner. It does not enable
the runner adapter.
## What Changed
- Added assigned-workspace validation.
- Added host home and Codex home overlap checks.
- Added retained payload bounds.
- Added recursive protected-value redaction.
- Added semantic completion tool disposition checks.
- Added focused security and bounds tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The focused boundary test has 3 passing cases.
## Risks
The main risk is accepting an unsafe workspace or retaining sensitive
provider data. Tests cover root escape, host overlap, size limits,
credential redaction, and completion-tool separation.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Existing adapters already use provider-neutral structured questions
> - Codex emits several provider-specific input and elicitation forms
> - Malformed native forms must fail closed instead of degrading to an
opaque prompt
> - This pull request adds the Codex question adapter without adding the
full driver
> - A later pull request will connect it to provider request handling
> - The benefit is a small compatibility boundary that preserves legacy
question behavior
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/paperclip-runner` Codex structured input handling.
**Problem or motivation**
Codex user-input and MCP elicitation requests use different shapes. The
runner needs one canonical question set and must map validated answers
back to the correct provider response.
**Proposed solution**
Normalize native forms into `paperclip.question_set.v1`. Preserve
optional answers, select modes, validation bounds, and stable IDs. Map
canonical responses back only after validation.
**Alternatives considered**
Passing provider-native forms through PRP would couple the app to Codex
and would not preserve the existing provider-neutral question boundary.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the Codex-first experimental runner and existing
structured-question compatibility. It does not enable the runner
adapter.
## What Changed
- Added request-kind detection for approval, input, and elicitation
requests.
- Added requestUserInput normalization.
- Added JSON Schema elicitation normalization.
- Added canonical runtime request payloads.
- Added response mapping for Codex answers and MCP elicitation content.
- Added malformed-form and multi-question tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The focused question adapter test has 3 passing cases.
## Risks
The main risk is changing question semantics. Tests verify optional
answers, single and multi select modes, text validation, duplicate IDs,
numeric elicitation, and canonical response mapping.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Codex executes commands inside the runner workspace
> - The provider process must not inherit host credentials or broad file
access
> - Planning mode also needs a read-only workspace boundary
> - This pull request defines the isolated launch and thread
configuration
> - A later pull request will use it from the Codex driver
> - The benefit is an independently reviewed security boundary
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/paperclip-runner` Codex launch security.
**Problem or motivation**
A provider process can inherit host paths, environment secrets, network
access, or write permissions unless the runner constructs a closed
configuration.
**Proposed solution**
Build explicit app-server arguments and thread parameters. Deny host
roots and network access, allow only a small environment list, and use a
read-only profile for plan mode.
**Alternatives considered**
Relying on ambient Codex defaults would make runner safety depend on
each host installation.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the Codex-first experimental runner. It does not enable
the runner adapter.
## What Changed
- Added deny-by-default filesystem rules.
- Added separate execution and planning permission profiles.
- Added network denial.
- Added an explicit environment allowlist.
- Disabled host apps, plugins, memories, multi-agent behavior, and image
generation.
- Added security configuration tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The focused security configuration test has 3 passing cases.
## Risks
The risk is an overly broad provider launch. Tests verify denied host
roots, read-only context roots, workspace permissions, network denial,
and secret exclusion.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Runner events need provider-neutral workspace change facts
> - Codex reports one complete unified diff snapshot per turn
> - Provider diff text can be large and can contain unsafe paths
> - This pull request adds only the bounded pure parser
> - A later pull request will connect it to the Codex driver
> - The benefit is an independently tested workspace boundary
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/paperclip-runner` Codex event normalization.
**Problem or motivation**
Codex turn diffs need stable file operations and statistics. Raw diff
input must not escape the workspace or grow without bounds.
**Proposed solution**
Parse complete unified diff snapshots into normalized file records.
Bound file count and retained text, reject unsafe paths, and represent
binary changes without text.
**Alternatives considered**
Parsing diffs inside the main driver would make provider lifecycle
review larger and harder to test in isolation.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the Codex-first experimental runner. It does not enable an
adapter.
## What Changed
- Added create, modify, delete, rename, mode-change, and binary parsing.
- Added workspace-relative path validation.
- Added file-count and per-file text bounds.
- Added focused rename, binary, hostile path, and size tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The focused parser test has 2 passing cases.
## Risks
Low risk. This is a pure parser with no file-system access and no
production caller yet.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The first production runner provider is Codex
> - Codex app-server communicates with JSON-RPC over a child process
> - The process boundary needs explicit resource, environment, and
diagnostic limits
> - This pull request adds only the bounded transport layer
> - A later pull request will add the Codex event-mapping driver
> - The benefit is a small reviewable process boundary before provider
behavior is added
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/paperclip-runner` Codex transport.
**Problem or motivation**
The runner needs a safe way to start and communicate with Codex
app-server. Unbounded lines, queued notifications, pending requests, and
inherited credentials would make that boundary unsafe.
**Proposed solution**
Add a JSON-RPC process transport with explicit byte and count limits,
sanitized environment construction, process-group metadata,
server-request handling, redacted diagnostics, and deterministic
closure.
**Alternatives considered**
Adding transport and the full Codex driver in one change would create a
much larger review surface. This pull request isolates the child-process
boundary.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the Codex-first experimental runner. It does not enable
the runner adapter.
## What Changed
- Added bounded JSON-RPC request and notification queues.
- Added malformed-message and oversized-line fail-closed behavior.
- Added sanitized Codex environment construction.
- Added process-group tracking and deterministic shutdown.
- Added redacted diagnostics and server-request replies.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The focused transport test has 6 passing cases.
## Risks
The main risk is child-process cleanup. Tests cover closure, pending
request rejection, queue bounds, process metadata, and malformed input.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The runner action catalog defines what scenario tools can exist
> - A catalog entry must not grant authority by itself
> - Scenario runs need run-scoped discovery and invocation checks
> - Observable results must not expose protected values
> - This pull request adds an authorized package-local scenario tool
runtime
> - The benefit is deterministic tool testing without production service
authority
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/paperclip-runner` scenario tool runtime.
**Problem or motivation**
Scenario tests need to expose only authorized actions. They also need
stable denial records, redaction, and idempotent command handling.
**Proposed solution**
Project the canonical scenario contracts into a visible catalog. Recheck
policy at invocation. Dispatch allowed operations through the mock
control-plane port and return redacted receipts.
**Alternatives considered**
Direct production bindings are outside this pull request. The runtime
uses only the package-local mock port.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports runner conformance and scenario testing. It does not
enable an adapter or production service call.
## What Changed
- Added run-scoped scenario tool discovery.
- Added claim, role, task-mode, and policy authorization.
- Added input validation, redaction, and authorization records.
- Added fake-agent and Codex definition projections.
- Added deterministic mock dispatch and idempotency coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The focused semantic runtime test has 10 passing cases.
## Risks
Low risk. The runtime is package-local and uses the mock control-plane
port. It creates no production binding.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Paperclip Runner needs a stable list of semantic actions
> - Earlier pull requests define the core and collaboration action
groups
> - The remaining domain and administration actions need the same
contract form
> - The complete catalog must remain data only until a later pull
request binds actions to services
> - This pull request completes and validates the canonical action
inventory
> - The benefit is one frozen source of truth for later discovery and
authorization work
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/paperclip-runner` protocol contracts.
**Problem or motivation**
The runner does not yet have a complete canonical inventory for domain
and administration actions. Later authorization code cannot project a
stable operation catalog without this inventory.
**Proposed solution**
Add the remaining action contracts and aggregate all 41 actions.
Validate every declared live and scenario projection with its own
schema.
**Alternatives considered**
Binding these actions directly to production services would combine data
contracts with authority. This pull request keeps every production
service binding unbound.
**Roadmap alignment**
This change supports the experimental Paperclip Runner. It does not
enable the runner or change an existing adapter.
## What Changed
- Added 14 domain and administration action contracts.
- Added the complete immutable 41-action catalog.
- Added validation for live inputs and outputs.
- Added validation for scenario inputs and capability-result envelopes.
- Kept every production service binding unbound.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The focused catalog test validates 41 actions.
## Risks
Low risk. This pull request adds package-local contract data and tests.
It does not authorize an action or change an adapter.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 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 (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents collaborate through discovery, delegation, dependencies, and
governed approvals
> - These optional operations need stable contracts before any run may
discover them
> - The core action contracts are already isolated in the lower stack
> - This pull request adds the 13 collaboration and governance action
definitions
> - It does not grant claims or bind production services
> - The benefit is a reviewable contract layer for later run-scoped
authorization
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
packages/paperclip-runner protocol action contracts
**Problem or motivation**
Optional collaboration operations need one provider-neutral definition
for policy metadata, documentation, live and scenario schemas, and
canonical examples.
**Proposed solution**
Add one immutable module for each discovery, delegation, dependency, and
governance action. Add a collaboration aggregate and validate all
examples with JSON Schema.
**Alternatives considered**
These contracts could land with executable authorization. That would
make contract review depend on runtime policy and server service
bindings.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It
does not make any optional operation discoverable or invocable.
## What Changed
- Add 13 collaboration and governance action definitions.
- Add immutable policy, schema, documentation, and example data.
- Add a collaboration-only aggregate.
- Validate every action example against its declared schema.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The branch changes 15 files relative to its declared base.
## Risks
Low production risk. The declarations do not grant claims or contain
executable service bindings. Tests require optional placement, immutable
metadata, stable identities, and schema-valid examples.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked an existing public issue or described the
issue in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Runner tools need stable provider-neutral action contracts
> - Core task work must use the same names, policy metadata, schemas,
and examples on every provider surface
> - A single large 41-action review would hide contract drift
> - This pull request adds only the 14 always-present core action
definitions
> - It does not grant discovery or execution authority
> - The benefit is a reviewable immutable contract base for later
authorization wiring
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
packages/paperclip-runner protocol action contracts
**Problem or motivation**
The runner has an older compact catalog, but it does not single-source
the full policy metadata, documentation, live shape, scenario shape, and
examples for each core action.
**Proposed solution**
Add one immutable definition module per core action. Add an internal
core aggregate and validate every input and output example against its
declared JSON Schema. Keep all production authorization and execution
unavailable.
**Alternatives considered**
All 41 action definitions could land in one pull request. That would
create more than 7,000 changed lines and reduce useful review depth.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It
does not enable the adapter or expose any new production tool.
## What Changed
- Add 14 core protocol action definitions.
- Add immutable policy, schema, documentation, and example data for each
action.
- Add a deep-freeze helper and a core-only aggregate.
- Validate all core examples with JSON Schema.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The branch changes 17 files relative to its declared base.
## Risks
Low production risk. These declarations do not contain executable
authorization or service bindings. The main risk is schema drift. Tests
validate operation identity, placement, immutability, and canonical
examples.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked an existing public issue or described the
issue in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Semantic operations need a control plane that owns authorization and
state changes
> - Conformance tests need this authority without a live server or
database
> - The existing in-memory port covers transport facts but not
capability-governed domains
> - This pull request adds a deterministic capability-aware control
plane for tests
> - It keeps the implementation behind the package testing entry point
> - The benefit is repeatable authorization and mutation tests before
production wiring lands
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
packages/paperclip-runner testing and semantic capability contracts
**Problem or motivation**
Later semantic action slices need deterministic company, actor, task,
governance, workspace, secret, budget, routine, and audit state. A live
Paperclip server would make those tests slow and environment-dependent.
**Proposed solution**
Add serializable capability fixture types and an in-memory control-plane
adapter. Enforce company scope, claims, roles, idempotency, redaction,
faults, and audit records. Export the adapter only from the testing
entry point.
**Alternatives considered**
The tests could mock each action separately. That would duplicate
authorization rules and would not verify state transitions across
multiple actions.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It
does not enable production semantic operations or change app execution.
## What Changed
- Add deterministic capability fixture types and seed state.
- Add an in-memory capability control-plane adapter.
- Enforce run, company, actor, claim, role, and idempotency boundaries.
- Model governed task, document, interaction, workspace, secret,
routine, and audit changes.
- Add deterministic tests and testing-entry-point exports.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The branch changes 5 files relative to its declared base.
## Risks
The main risk is a permissive mock that hides a production authorization
error. The adapter fails closed for missing claims, wrong roles,
cross-company access, duplicate mutations, invalid state, and restricted
secret access. Tests cover each fixture domain and serialized restore
behavior.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked an existing public issue or described the
issue in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The runner needs repeatable tests at the provider and control-plane
boundaries
> - Network services and live providers cannot produce deterministic
conformance results
> - Small in-memory adapters can exercise the same public contracts
without production side effects
> - This pull request adds a deterministic harness driver, control-plane
adapter, and fixture runner
> - It exposes these helpers only from the testing entry point
> - The benefit is stable cross-boundary verification for later runtime
changes
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
packages/paperclip-runner testing and conformance support
**Problem or motivation**
The public runner contracts have unit tests, but later provider and
server slices need a deterministic way to exercise session, event,
replay, checkpoint, and result behavior together.
**Proposed solution**
Add in-memory implementations of the harness-driver and control-plane
ports. Add a canonical conformance fixture and runner. Export these
utilities only from `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner/testing`.
**Alternatives considered**
The tests could start a real provider or server. That would make the
conformance gate slower, less portable, and dependent on credentials or
network state.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It
does not enable a production adapter or change current app execution.
## What Changed
- Add a deterministic harness-driver implementation.
- Add an in-memory control-plane adapter with replay and checkpoint
support.
- Add a canonical provider-neutral conformance fixture.
- Add a reusable conformance runner and contract tests.
- Export the helpers from the package testing entry point only.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- The branch changes 10 files relative to its declared base.
## Risks
Low risk. This pull request adds test-only adapters and conformance
helpers. It does not select a runtime or change production behavior.
Contract tests verify event identity, replay, checkpoints, and
deterministic results.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked an existing public issue or described the
issue in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Semantic tools cross a trust boundary between a provider and the
control plane
> - Durable runs need exact input, result, denial, duplicate, and
reconciliation receipts
> - Replay must reject unsupported required versions and mismatched
receipt pairs
> - This pull request adds the receipt builders and deterministic replay
fixtures
> - It keeps newer sequence and gap safety limits from the current stack
> - The benefit is auditable semantic activity before more providers use
it
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
packages/paperclip-runner
**Problem or motivation**
Semantic tool calls have basic authorization records, but durable replay
does not yet cover reconciled calls, denial redaction, duplicate
receipts, governance targets, or artifact references.
**Proposed solution**
Add bounded semantic receipt builders, a reconciled phase, strict pair
binding, fail-closed version checks, and generated replay oracles for
the important lifecycle cases.
**Alternatives considered**
The runner could store provider-native tool payloads. That would weaken
protocol portability and make redaction and retry behavior
provider-specific.
**Roadmap alignment**
This supports the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It
does not enable a production adapter.
## What Changed
- Add semantic input and result receipt builders.
- Add optional reconciliation receipts for pending calls.
- Reject unsupported semantic receipt versions.
- Validate receipt correlation, operation, idempotency, and digest
bindings.
- Add deterministic replay fixtures and generated golden outputs.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Replay golden and protocol manifest checks pass.
- The branch changes 27 files relative to its declared base.
## Risks
The main risk is accepting a receipt that belongs to another call or
replaying a duplicate as a new mutation. Binding checks compare
correlation, operation, idempotency, and content digest fields. Fixtures
cover denials, duplicates, governance chains, optional fields,
artifacts, and unsupported versions.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked an existing public issue or described the
issue in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Paperclip Runner package needs one provider-neutral session loop
> - Native execution contracts now define the accepted input and output
> - Backends still need bounded execution, recovery, and control-plane
ports
> - This pull request adds that package-local session runtime
> - It does not change server runtime selection or start the
experimental runner
> - The benefit is a tested execution core for later provider and server
layers
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
packages/paperclip-runner
**Problem or motivation**
The runner contracts do not yet have a shared session loop. Each backend
would otherwise duplicate event handoff, terminal handling, recovery
cursors, timeouts, and checkpoint behavior.
**Proposed solution**
Add the native session runtime, backend interfaces, control-plane port,
harness driver contract, deterministic conformance helpers, and bounded
tests.
**Alternatives considered**
The server could own this loop. That would mix provider process behavior
with server persistence and authority logic.
**Roadmap alignment**
This is part of the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It
does not enable a production adapter.
## What Changed
- Add a provider-neutral native session execution loop.
- Add recovery cursor reconciliation and checkpoint hooks.
- Add bounded timeout and governed-wait behavior.
- Add harness driver and control-plane conformance helpers.
- Add deterministic backend and session runtime tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Protocol generation and manifest checks pass.
- The branch changes 14 files relative to its declared base.
## Risks
The main risk is a session that hangs, duplicates an event, or restores
the wrong cursor after reconnect. Tests cover terminal events, timeouts,
durable handoff, duplicate receipts, recovery, continuity breaks, and
checkpoint updates. The change remains package-local.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (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
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Paperclip Runner package gives providers one stable execution
boundary
> - Later runner backends need one validated input and result contract
> - Provider-specific shapes cannot leak into server orchestration
> - This pull request adds the provider-neutral native execution
contracts
> - It also keeps legacy input versions readable while it validates new
input strictly
> - The benefit is a stable boundary for later backend and server pull
requests
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
packages/paperclip-runner
**Problem or motivation**
The runner has protocol transport and Codex support, but later backends
do not have one public contract for execution input, runtime context,
completion output, and recovery state.
**Proposed solution**
Add versioned native execution input parsers, model envelopes,
completion result helpers, runtime context contracts, and durable
recovery types. Keep these changes package-local. Do not change server
runtime selection.
**Alternatives considered**
Each provider could define its own server-facing input. That would
couple server orchestration to provider details and make compatibility
harder to verify.
**Roadmap alignment**
This is part of the existing experimental Paperclip Runner rollout. It
does not enable a new production adapter.
## What Changed
- Add versioned native execution input contracts and strict parsers.
- Add provider-neutral runtime context and completion contracts.
- Add durable recovery and local runner types.
- Add structured question compatibility and parser tests.
- Export only the contracts that exist in this stack layer.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- Protocol generation and manifest checks pass.
- The branch changes 12 files relative to its declared base.
## Risks
The main risk is accepting malformed or future input as a supported
contract. The parsers reject unknown required versions and unknown
fields. The change is package-local and does not select or start the
experimental runner.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, `gpt-5`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (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
> - The runner already persists PRP events, but provider-native activity
needs one bounded, provider-neutral vocabulary before additional
providers can be added safely.
> - The protocol catalog must describe capabilities without enabling or
authorizing a provider.
> - Provider normalization must not require an ACPX runtime dependency
merely to compile the shared event layer.
> - This pull request adds the event contract and pure normalizers only;
provider transports and production selection remain unchanged.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This is the first follow-up stacked on #12321. Codex, OpenCode, and ACP
runtimes expose different activity shapes. Without canonical
normalization, downstream task threads and traces would need
provider-specific branching and could retain unbounded or unsafe
payloads.
## What Changed
- Expand the PRP provider descriptor and canonical activity event
families.
- Add bounded Codex, OpenCode, and ACP event normalizers for plans,
tools, research, delegation, artifacts, review, safety, waits, and
notices.
- Preserve strict schema validation and regenerate the checked-in schema
bundle and manifest.
- Use a structural ACP event input so the provider-neutral layer does
not introduce or authorize an ACPX runtime dependency.
- Export the provider-event contract from the existing package root.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck:typescript`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:typescript` — 11
files and 88 tests passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `git diff --check`
- The local full repository runner reached unrelated macOS
workspace-path fixture failures; the affected runner suites pass and the
repository CI shards are the handoff authority.
- Diff against the declared base: 8 files.
## Compatibility Boundary
- No provider transport, adapter, server route, feature flag, or runtime
selection changes.
- Catalog presence does not authorize discovery or execution.
- Existing Codex execution continues through its current path.
- No dependency, migration, workflow, or lockfile change.
## Risks
The main risk is accepting malformed or unbounded provider payloads.
Schema validation remains fail-closed, text/output fields are bounded
and redacted, unsafe paths and URLs are discarded, and representative
variants for every declared event family are covered by tests.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 family. The client does not expose the exact
deployment ID or context window. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the relevant template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal task
identifier
- [x] I have run the affected local tests and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated the compatibility notes for this change
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open actionable comments
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The experimental Paperclip Runner can execute a guarded Codex run
and persist provider-neutral events.
> - The task page still reads direct-adapter transcripts and cannot
present those native events.
> - Structured runner questions must also use the existing task
interaction experience.
> - Runtime selection must use the persisted run mode, not an adapter
name or a current feature flag.
> - This pull request projects native events and questions into the
existing task thread.
> - Direct adapters keep their existing transcript, composer,
interaction, and finalization paths.
> - The benefit is a complete native Codex task thread without a
behavior change for existing adapters.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12202. This pull request replaces that stale implementation on
current `master`.
**What happened?**
The server persists native runner events and structured input requests.
The task page only consumes direct-adapter transcripts. A native run
therefore cannot present a complete transcript, usage, or question flow
through the normal task experience.
**Expected behavior**
Native runs project persisted provider-neutral events into the existing
task thread. Native structured questions use the existing interaction
card. Direct adapters retain their current behavior.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Enable the experimental runner.
2. Start a native Codex run that emits progress, usage, a structured
question, and a final reply.
3. Open the task page.
4. Observe that the direct-adapter transcript path cannot project the
native event records.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at `67f9867bc`.
## What Changed
- Add the canonical structured-question validator and shared contract
exports.
- Materialize native input requests as existing task interactions.
- Validate native answers and deliver them through the durable
question-response receipt.
- Resume the original PRP request with an idempotent `request.resolve`
command.
- Project native messages, tool activity, cumulative usage, and final
replies into the existing transcript model.
- Propagate persisted `runtimeMode` to the task page and select native
handling only for `runtimeMode: "native"`.
- Expire pending interactions through the shared issue service on every
terminal transition, including decisions, stalled reviews, tree control,
and pipeline retry cleanup.
- Queue native run cancellation while a transaction is open and execute
it only after the owning transaction commits.
- Keep nonterminal and non-runner issue paths on their existing service
call shapes and behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed, including the
Rust runner release build and protocol/catalog drift gates.
- Focused native-thread and lifecycle suites — 18 files and 481 tests
passed during review.
- `issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts` — 19/19 passed after the final
transactional-queue expectation update.
- `issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` — 87/87 passed in the
final isolated compatibility rerun.
- GitHub Actions — policy, build, canary, typecheck/release registry, 5
serialized server shards, 8 general-test shards, 3 browser shards, and
both aggregate gates passed on `7793f3193`.
- Security — Snyk, Socket Project Report, Socket PR Alerts, and
Superagent passed.
- Greptile — 5/5 on `7793f3193`; all actionable review threads resolved.
- `git diff --check` — passed.
- Diff against `master`: 44 files.
## Compatibility Boundary
- Native transcript polling only runs when the persisted run reports
`runtimeMode: "native"`.
- Missing or legacy runtime modes continue through
`useLiveRunTranscripts`.
- Legacy questions keep the existing optional free-text choice.
- Native closed select sets can suppress that legacy fallback.
- Terminal cleanup uses the same issue service for native and legacy
interactions; only a bound native question schedules a native run
cancellation.
- Native cancellation happens after transaction commit, so failed or
rolled-back writes do not cancel a still-valid run.
- The durable delivery service checks the original native request before
it considers a continuation run.
- This pull request adds no migration, dependency, workflow, manifest,
or lockfile change.
## Risks
The main risk is routing a direct-adapter task through native handling
or changing terminal issue behavior. The implementation selects the
native path only from persisted runtime facts, retains the existing
nonterminal call shape, and schedules native cancellation only for a
validated bound native question after commit. Focused and
repository-wide tests cover both paths. Native requests remain bound to
the company, issue, run, and agent; answers are validated, durable, and
idempotent across reconnects.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 family. The client does not expose the exact
deployment ID or context window. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code
execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have 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 the affected local tests and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated the compatibility notes for this change
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I addressed all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting
merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses one lockfile for all workspace packages.
> - The lockfile makes dependency installation repeatable.
> - The root manifest now includes AgentMail.
> - The old lockfile did not include AgentMail.
> - A frozen installation stopped before deployment.
> - This pull request refreshes the lockfile through the master
workflow.
> - The refresh makes the frozen installation complete again.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The root manifest declared `agentmail@^0.5.14`. The root lockfile did
not contain that dependency. The frozen installation failed.
**Expected behavior**
The lockfile must contain all root dependencies. A frozen installation
must complete without changing the lockfile.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Check out commit `4310b0c947727ef1ce1a6de3f4a556cd6a1e0ae1`.
2. Run `NODE_ENV=development CI=true pnpm install --frozen-lockfile
--force`.
3. Observe the missing dependency error.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`4310b0c947727ef1ce1a6de3f4a556cd6a1e0ae1`
**Deployment mode**
A self-hosted Linux arm64 deployment uses the master branch.
## What Changed
- Added `agentmail@^0.5.14` to the root lockfile importer.
- Added the dependency resolutions required by the current workspace
manifests.
- Kept the change limited to `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Verification
- Used Node.js 24.20.0 and pnpm 9.15.4.
- Ran `NODE_ENV=development CI=true pnpm install --frozen-lockfile
--force`.
- Confirmed that the command completed successfully.
- Confirmed that the command did not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
- Risk is low because this pull request changes only the generated
lockfile.
- The refresh adds packages that the current manifests already declare.
- A future manifest change can require another lockfile refresh.
> This pull request does not change a core feature. It does not overlap
with `ROADMAP.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex used the `gpt-5` model. The runtime did not provide the
context-window size. The model used reasoning, shell tools, 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
Co-authored-by: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The task-drain service controls when task execution can start and
stop.
> - The service had compensation paths for states that its validators or
recovery process already handle.
> - These paths added rollback state and a stuck-claim marker without
improving normal drain behavior.
> - This pull request removes the unreachable TTL clamp, audit rollback,
generation counter, and double-fault marker.
> - The result keeps input validation, audit ordering, atomic release,
and orphan recovery.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The task-drain service and its routes manage drain state, audit rows,
and execution locks.
**Subsystem affected**
server/ — REST API and orchestration services.
**Current behavior**
The service clamps a validated TTL value. The routes mutate drain state
before audit writes and then restore state after a failed write. Claim
release also tracks a second durable-write failure with an in-memory
marker.
**Proposed behavior**
The validator remains the single TTL policy. The routes write audit rows
before they mutate drain state. Claim release logs a failed write and
lets the orphan reaper release the issue lock.
**Reason and benefit**
The removed paths cannot handle a valid API request that reaches them.
The rollback can lose the original start time. The marker can keep a
drain non-quiescent until process restart. The simpler flow keeps state
consistent and uses the existing recovery path.
**Breaking changes**
None to the public API. A failed claim release keeps the issue lock
until the next orphan-reaper cycle.
## What Changed
- Remove the service-layer TTL clamp because the shared validator
rejects values above the limit.
- Write task-drain audit rows before drain mutation and remove the
rollback helpers.
- Remove the rollback generation counter and its unused state.
- Remove double-fault stuck-claim tracking and keep the atomic release
path.
- State that the quiescent flag describes work in this process.
- Keep the orphan reaper as the recovery path after a failed claim
release.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-task-drain-admission-release.test.ts`.
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-task-drain.test.ts`.
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts`.
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-scheduling-suppression.test.ts`.
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test
server/src/__tests__/execution-lock-orphan-cleanup.test.ts`.
- The five affected test files pass with 70 tests.
- Confirm the full pull request checks pass before merge.
## Risks
The issue lock remains held until the orphan reaper runs after a failed
claim release. This uses the existing recovery path for interrupted
runs. The change does not alter the public API or database schema.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, 400K context window, 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The CLI can save a configuration and start the local server in one
command.
> - The onboarding path set a browser-open environment variable without
an explicit user request.
> - Headless test servers use the same onboarding path.
> - Each server restart could therefore open a system browser.
> - This pull request removes the implicit browser-open request and
fixes test servers to disable it explicitly.
> - The benefit is predictable foreground and test startup without
unsolicited browser windows.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
This is stack 11 of 11. It depends on stack 10.
**What happened?**
`paperclipai onboard --yes --run` set `PAPERCLIP_OPEN_ON_LISTEN=true`.
Headless server users, including browser test runners, opened the system
browser on each server restart.
**Expected behavior**
Server startup must not open a browser unless the caller explicitly sets
`PAPERCLIP_OPEN_ON_LISTEN=true`.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run `paperclipai onboard --yes --run` from a clean source checkout.
2. Wait for the server to listen.
3. Observe that the default system browser opens.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on `dbf052577` plus the dependent stack.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev from source.
## What Changed
- Stop onboarding from setting `PAPERCLIP_OPEN_ON_LISTEN=true` for
foreground startup.
- Set `PAPERCLIP_OPEN_ON_LISTEN=false` in E2E and issue-detail
performance test servers as defense in depth.
- Preserve the existing explicit environment opt-in in the server.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts` — 10 tests
passed.
- `pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck` — passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed on the stacked head.
- `pnpm build` — passed on the stacked head.
- Playwright was not run locally by request.
## Risks
- Low risk. The only behavior change removes an unsolicited side effect.
- A caller that wants browser startup can still set
`PAPERCLIP_OPEN_ON_LISTEN=true` explicitly.
- No database or migration change exists in this layer.
> 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 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
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Apps give those agents governed access to external tools.
> - Provider catalogs must match each provider's current protocol and
credential contract.
> - Postman method labels and API-key placement were outdated.
> - Shopify now offers a UCP commerce endpoint that needs a managed
agent-profile argument.
> - This pull request updates both providers and documents the complete
connection-authoring workflow.
> - The benefit is accurate setup, safer runtime defaults, and a
repeatable provider review process.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 10 of 11. It depends on stack 9 and preserves the final
catalog work recovered from #11965.
Related: #5904 covers Shopify skill routing. This pull request covers
the Apps connection contract instead.
## What Changed
- Update Postman hosted MCP methods, capability choices, default
selection, and bearer-token placement.
- Add Shopify UCP commerce and Storefront compatibility methods with
public-store prerequisites.
- Inject the reviewed Shopify UCP agent profile at runtime and remove
that managed field from user input schemas.
- Classify Shopify checkout completion and cancellation as destructive
actions.
- Expand the connection authoring runbook from provider research through
verification and pull request handoff.
- Add focused shared, server, and UI coverage.
- Make the approved-execution waiter phase-aware so slow preparation
cannot consume the provider execution timeout and grace period.
- Settle legacy pre-execute-on-approve requests and invocations as
failed, clear their stale idempotency key, and allow a fresh governed
approval instead of leaving work stuck in `executing`.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts
ui/src/pages/apps/AppsConnect.test.tsx -t
"Postman|Shopify|normalizeConnectionMethodConfig|classifyRisk"` (16
passed)
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/services/approved-execution-wait.test.ts` (4 passed)
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway.test.ts -t
"enforces policy, approvals, retries, rate limits, and company
boundaries for connected remote MCP calls"` (1 passed)
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway-service.test.ts` (21 passed; includes
legacy approval settlement and fresh-approval recovery)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- Shopify UCP calls now include a Paperclip-managed agent profile that
overrides caller input at the same path.
- Postman EU credentials now use the hosted MCP server's bearer-token
contract instead of the general REST API header.
- The catalog generator and checked-in definitions change together to
prevent regeneration drift.
- Approved execution preparation has an explicit two-minute bound;
provider execution retains its own 65-second timeout and persistence
grace starting from durable provider start.
- Legacy approvals created before execute-on-approve are intentionally
terminalized and must be requested again under the current signed
contract.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This provider update does not duplicate
planned core work. The related open Shopify PR addresses skill routing,
not Apps connections.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime exact model ID and context window were
not exposed. The model used 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 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 is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The backend now turns agent requests into durable connection
intents.
> - Operators need a clear path to inspect, configure, and finish those
requests.
> - The experience must preserve identity, agent access, and interrupted
setup state.
> - This pull request adds the connection intent setup experience across
the app UI.
> - The benefit is one guided flow from agent request to governed
connection.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 9 of 11. It depends on stack 8 and replaces another
reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Add connection intent cards and setup flow integration.
- Add browse, connection, app detail, and sidebar experience updates.
- Preserve exact draft identity and access choices across resume and
OAuth recovery.
- Add focused UI, architecture, policy, and end-to-end coverage.
- Keep transient retained-connection lookup failures retryable instead
of misclassifying them as missing targets.
- Align the dark-mode E2E contract with the intentionally hidden
Gateways and Profiles sidebar tabs.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- Focused UI result: 372 tests passed across 20 files.
- AppsConnect regression suite: 80/80 passed, including failed
connection and application lookups during retained reconnect.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/AppsSidebar.test.tsx` (1 passed)
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- An interrupted OAuth flow can leave a durable draft that needs resume.
- The UI resumes the exact draft and keeps its identity and agent access
settings.
- Retained reconnect retries refetch connections and applications
together to avoid mixing partial snapshots.
- Gateways and Profiles remain route-accessible but intentionally absent
from the sidebar until their existing ship gate is lifted.
- The change does not add a database migration.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used 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 linked the public source pull request with `Refs #`
- [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 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.
> - Connection intents need secure provider implementations to complete
setup.
> - Some providers use managed OAuth or external credential brokers.
> - Those tokens must stay out of durable Paperclip state and fail
closed when refresh fails.
> - This pull request adds managed connector backends and the required
storage contract.
> - The benefit is safer provider setup with governed credential
lifecycles.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 8 of 11. It depends on stack 7 and replaces another
reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Add managed Google Workspace and external connector backends.
- Add Vercel Connect support without storing provider bearer tokens.
- Add replay-safe migration 0232 and its generated snapshot.
- Fail closed and clear stale token bindings when organization OAuth
refresh needs reauthorization.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
- Result: 194 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/services/remote-url-credentials.test.ts` (5 passed, including
URL userinfo vault extraction)
## Risks
- Broker metadata errors can block provider setup.
- OAuth refresh failure disables the shared organization connection
until reauthorization.
- Migration 0232 is generated, ordered after 0231, and safe to replay.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used 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 linked the public source pull request with `Refs #`
- [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 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 is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agents need a governed way to request app connections during issue
work.
> - The catalog now describes the available providers and setup methods.
> - A request must become a durable, company-scoped intent before an
operator acts on it.
> - This pull request adds that intent runtime across server, agent,
CLI, and shared contracts.
> - The benefit is a safe bridge from agent need to operator-approved
setup.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 7 of 11. It depends on stack 6 and replaces another
reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Add connection intent types, validation, service logic, and routes.
- Add agent runtime tools and CLI support for connection requests.
- Add issue-thread interaction support for connection intents.
- Add runtime, route, adapter, and contract tests.
- Hold the final resolved-continuation row lock through asynchronous
adapter preparation until an actual process spawn, so parking or
reassignment cannot cross that boundary.
- Report Hermes Gateway's first remote run request through the shared
dispatch hook so the resolved-intent lock is released at the true
dispatch boundary.
- Revalidate the addressed user's live non-viewer membership and
connection-management authority for every intent mutation, including
OAuth completion.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
- Result: 176 tests passed.
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts` (32 passed;
includes non-process dispatch lock-release coverage)
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/connection-intents-service.test.ts -t
"addressed-user mutation"` (1 passed)
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t "binds OAuth
callback completion to the initiating board session"` (1 passed)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter test --
src/gateway/server/execute.test.ts` (23 passed; includes dispatch-hook
ordering and exactly-once coverage)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter typecheck`
## Risks
- A malformed intent could create an unusable operator request.
- Validators and company checks reject invalid or cross-company
requests.
- The final continuation gate holds the issue row lock through adapter
preparation until process or remote dispatch; later operator changes use
the normal active-run interruption path.
- The change does not add a database migration.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used 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 linked the public source pull request with `Refs #`
- [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 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.
> - A useful app store needs accurate and selectable provider
definitions.
> - Local brand assets now cover the expanded provider set.
> - Provider methods differ in transport, authentication, ownership, and
required scope.
> - This pull request expands the catalog and encodes those provider
contracts.
> - The benefit is a larger self-serve store with explicit setup
choices.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 6 of 11. It depends on stack 5 and replaces another
reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Add and update provider definitions for the self-serve catalog.
- Add Google Workspace connection methods and capability profiles.
- Add catalog generation, ingestion, URL matching, and contract tests.
- Update legacy key tests to use a provider that still uses header
credentials.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
- Result: 164 tests passed.
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- An incorrect provider definition can offer the wrong setup method.
- Contract tests verify transport, authentication, and provider URL
behavior.
- The change does not add a database migration.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used 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 `Refs #` or (b)
described the issue in this pull request
- [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 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 app store needs stable provider marks that do not depend on
remote image hosts.
> - The connector layer adds many recognizable services.
> - Local assets must work in light and dark themes and follow the
design token gate.
> - This pull request adds the provider asset set and its rendering
support.
> - The benefit is fast and consistent app identification across the UI.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 5 of 11. It depends on stack 4 and replaces another
reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Add local provider logos for the connection catalog.
- Add light and dark asset selection where providers need it.
- Add deterministic fallback behavior and UI tests.
- Document the fixed brand-color allowlist in the token gate.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/apps/AppLogo.test.tsx`
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- A missing asset path can show the deterministic letter fallback.
- Brand SVG colors use the documented asset allowlist because provider
marks cannot use product theme tokens.
- The change does not add a database migration.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used 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 `Refs #` or (b)
described the issue in this pull request
- [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 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.
> - App connections need both direct providers and managed provider
hubs.
> - The grant layer now defines safe credential ownership.
> - Composio needs parent and child connection lifecycle rules, and
Gmail needs governed setup.
> - This pull request adds both connector families on the grant
foundation.
> - The benefit is broader app access without weakening credential
isolation.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 4 of 11. It depends on stack 3 and replaces another
reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Add Composio parent and child connection support.
- Add Gmail connection setup and governance.
- Preserve credential paths and remove duplicate binding declarations.
- Cascade Composio pause and restore actions to child connections.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
- Result: 164 tests passed.
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- Parent lifecycle changes can affect every Composio child.
- The service restores only children whose provider accounts remain
active.
- Credential binding paths are normalized before secret resolution.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used 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
- [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
- [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.
> - External tools need explicit identity and access boundaries.
> - Shared connection credentials cannot represent every user-scoped use
case.
> - Grants must stay company-scoped and support safe delegation.
> - This pull request adds connection grants, identity rules, and their
database contract.
> - The benefit is durable control over which identity an agent may use.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 3 of 11. It depends on stack 2 and replaces another
reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Add company and user connection grants.
- Add delegated identity and membership rules.
- Synchronize database, shared, server, and UI contracts.
- Register the grant-member replacement route in the OpenAPI surface in
the same layer that mounts it.
- Add migration 0231 with replay-safe guards and coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` (5 passed)
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- Incorrect grant selection could expose the wrong credential scope.
- The service enforces company and subject boundaries before credential
use.
- Migration 0231 is generated, ordered after 0230, and safe to replay.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked a public issue or pull request with `Refs #`
- [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 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.
> - App connections must work in both the operator UI and agent tool
gateway.
> - The first stack layer adds secure remote connections.
> - Operators still need clear setup, test, and recovery states.
> - This pull request adds the gateway behavior and the workspace
connection experience.
> - The benefit is a connection flow that is easier to understand and
recover.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 2 of 11. It depends on stack 1 and replaces another
reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Improve remote tool gateway connection behavior.
- Add clearer app setup, test, and recovery states.
- Add focused server and UI tests for the new paths.
- Keep the diff isolated from later identity and catalog work.
- Stabilize DNS-pinned remote HTTP protocol fixtures and the
managed-runtime public-origin fixture for this independently tested
layer.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` (150 passed)
- `pnpm test:run`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- Gateway errors now surface through new user-facing states.
- A stale connection can require a new setup attempt.
- The change does not add a database migration.
- The injected HTTP transport and public URL are test-only fixtures;
production DNS pinning and runtime behavior are unchanged.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used 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
- [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
- [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.
> - Apps give those agents governed access to external tools.
> - Remote MCP setup needs secure endpoint validation and durable
credentials.
> - PostHog needs both browser sign-in and personal API key setup paths.
> - This pull request adds the shared remote MCP foundation and the
PostHog definition.
> - The benefit is a secure and reusable base for later app connection
work.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11965
This is stack 1 of 11. It replaces the first reviewable part of #11965.
## What Changed
- Add guarded remote MCP setup and credential handling.
- Add PostHog OAuth and API key connection methods.
- Add focused server, shared contract, and UI coverage.
- Keep the migration replay-safe and idempotent.
- Give the late-close security regression the same 10-second CI headroom
as the adjacent real-timer handshake test.
- Synchronize fake-timer handshake tests at the exact ensure-session
boundary so real filesystem setup cannot race the fake deadline.
- Drive PTY overflow coverage only after listener registration so
scheduling cannot reorder the test fixture.
## Verification
- pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/plugin-worker-manager.test.ts (220 passed; affected
cases also passed five focused stress repetitions)
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts -t "never leaks a
sandbox-provided value from a late close rejection into logs or the
result"` (1 passed)
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts -t "never
promotes a late ensureSession resolution|closes a late-resolving real
handle exactly once"` (2 passed)
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm build`
## Risks
- Remote endpoint validation can reject configurations that previously
passed without checks.
- OAuth configuration errors can block setup until the operator corrects
the provider settings.
- The migration uses guarded statements so repeated execution is safe.
- The test-only synchronization changes do not affect runtime behavior;
they remove filesystem/fake-clock and listener-registration races
observed under parallel CI load.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app
connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not
exposed. The model used 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 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 server admits agent work through heartbeat scheduling and
execution paths
> - Operators need to stop new work before maintenance or a graceful
shutdown
> - A process restart alone does not provide a reusable admission
control primitive
> - This pull request adds an instance API that holds new task admission
and reports process quiescence
> - The benefit is a small, auditable control that lets operators wait
for active work without a restart
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
Operators cannot hold new task admission without restarting the
Paperclip process. A restart can interrupt maintenance flows and does
not provide a status signal for active work.
**Proposed solution**
Add `GET /instance/task-drain`, `POST /instance/task-drain`, and `DELETE
/instance/task-drain`. The server keeps the drain state in process
memory, applies it to every scheduling suppression path, supports an
optional TTL up to 24 hours, and reports active wake and run counts.
**Alternatives considered**
A timer would clear the drain after its TTL, but it could keep the
Node.js event loop open during shutdown. A database row would add
storage and query work for process-local state. The implementation uses
lazy expiry and process memory instead.
**Roadmap alignment**
The change supports the roadmap goal for enforced outcomes and safe
recovery actions. It does not duplicate a listed roadmap item.
**Additional context**
This is a server and shared-package change. It adds no user interface
and no database migration.
## What Changed
- Add process-local task-drain state with lazy TTL expiry.
- Add task-drain admission suppression to the shared heartbeat resolver.
- Add instance routes to read, start, and stop a task drain.
- Add validation for positive TTL values and the shared 24-hour maximum.
- Add activity records for drain mutations and tests for status, access
control, validation, and suppression.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-task-drain.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-scheduling-suppression.test.ts`.
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec tsc --noEmit`.
- Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` and compare
its known pre-existing errors with the base commit.
- Confirm that pull request CI reaches a terminal green state.
## Risks
The drain state exists only in process memory, so a restart clears it.
This behavior matches the process-local design. A drain without a TTL
remains active until an operator calls the delete route. The status
route reads in-memory activity sets and does not query stale database
rows.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, extended reasoning with tool use and code
execution. The exact runtime context window is not exposed by the
execution 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 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 GitHub Actions to protect changes before they enter
`master`.
> - GitHub evaluates every pull request in a native stack against the
stack base.
> - The current workflow therefore starts the complete CI matrix for
every layer in a stack.
> - A large stack can queue many copies of the same integrated
verification and delay every pull request.
> - GitHub provides stack position and base metadata so workflows can
select merge-relevant layers.
> - This pull request keeps policy and required check names on every
layer, but runs full CI only for ordinary pull requests, the top layer,
and the lowest unmerged layer.
> - The benefit is much lower CI load without weakening the
required-check contract.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The trusted pull request workflow currently runs every test, build,
canary, and E2E lane for every pull request in a native stack.
**Subsystem affected**
GitHub Actions pull request verification.
**Current behavior**
A stack with 61 pull requests can start 61 complete CI matrices after a
cascading rebase.
**Proposed behavior**
Run the always-on policy job and stable required-check aggregators for
every layer. Run the complete verification matrix only for ordinary pull
requests, the top stack layer, and the lowest unmerged stack layer.
**Reason and benefit**
The top layer verifies the integrated stack. The lowest unmerged layer
verifies the current merge candidate. Middle layers keep
branch-protection checks without consuming the complete runner matrix.
**Breaking changes**
Middle stack layers no longer run the complete CI matrix. Their `ci /
verify` and `ci / e2e` checks still require the policy job to pass and
require every expensive lane to be intentionally skipped.
## What Changed
- Add a fail-safe stack scope decision to the trusted PR runner gate.
- Run typecheck, general tests, build, serialized tests, canary, and E2E
shards only for ordinary, top, and lowest-unmerged pull requests.
- Preserve the required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` names on every
layer.
- Make the required aggregators distinguish valid middle-layer skips
from failures or missing scope decisions.
- Add regression coverage for ordinary, top, bottom, middle, and
malformed stack metadata.
## Verification
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` — 11 tests passed.
- `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml`
— passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed.
- The caller remains pinned to the current trusted workflow. A separate
activation change must advance the immutable SHA after this pull request
lands.
## Risks
- Incorrect stack classification could skip important jobs. Missing or
malformed stack metadata defaults to full CI.
- Middle-layer required checks depend on the policy job and verify that
all expensive jobs have the `skipped` result.
- The reusable workflow change does not become active until the
immutable caller SHA advances in a separate change.
> 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
- [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 GitHub ownership rules to protect critical repository
files.
> - These rules cover release infrastructure, GitHub configuration,
skills, and dependency files.
> - The current rules do not include `@forgottendev`.
> - The new maintainer needs the same review scope as the existing code
owners.
> - This pull request adds `@forgottendev` to every existing CODEOWNERS
rule.
> - The benefit is consistent review ownership without a change to the
protected path set.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This change improves the GitHub review ownership for critical repository
files.
**Subsystem affected**
Repository governance and GitHub configuration.
**Current behavior**
The 13 existing CODEOWNERS rules list `@cryppadotta`, `@devinfoley`, and
`@nickyleach`. They do not list `@forgottendev`.
**Proposed behavior**
Every existing CODEOWNERS rule also lists `@forgottendev`.
**Reason and benefit**
This gives `@forgottendev` the same review ownership scope as the
existing maintainers. It keeps ownership consistent across all protected
paths.
**Breaking changes**
None. This change does not remove an owner or change a path pattern.
## What Changed
- Added `@forgottendev` to all 13 existing entries in
`.github/CODEOWNERS`.
- Kept all existing owners and path patterns unchanged.
## Verification
- Ran `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD`.
- Confirmed that all 13 active CODEOWNERS rules contain `@forgottendev`.
- Confirmed that the commit changes only `.github/CODEOWNERS`.
- Confirmed that the GitHub account `forgottendev` exists.
- Did not run the application test suite because this change only
updates GitHub ownership metadata.
## Risks
- Low risk. This is an additive ownership change.
- GitHub can request review from `@forgottendev` for future pull
requests that change a covered path.
> 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, with reasoning, shell access, and GitHub
CLI tool use. The hosted context-window size was not exposed.
## 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>
Dotta
github-actions[bot]
Nicky Leach