## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Paperclip Runner provides durable, provider-neutral agent
execution.
> - The current stack supports qualified local providers but omits the
managed provider paths from the integration branch.
> - Claude Managed Agents and AWS AgentCore need explicit profile
qualification, durable recovery, usage accounting, and cleanup controls.
> - This pull request adds those managed backends as the third part of
the Runner parity stack.
> - The benefit is managed execution without weakening the default-off
Runner rollout gate.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting: Runner, server orchestration, database profiles, CLI, and
adapter configuration UI.
**Problem or motivation**
The current Runner stack cannot select or execute the managed Claude
Agents API or AWS Bedrock AgentCore Harness backends. It also lacks
qualified profile storage and recovery checks for those remote
resources.
**Proposed solution**
Add qualified managed and remote profiles, API and CLI management, exact
provider selection, durable lifecycle handling, cumulative usage
accounting, bounded cleanup, and retention acknowledgement. Keep
`enableNativeRunner` default-off.
**Alternatives considered**
A direct copy of the old integration branch was rejected because its
provider contracts, model values, credential flow, and migration history
no longer match the current base. A single large parity pull request was
also rejected because stacked review keeps each subsystem bounded.
**Roadmap alignment**
This continues the existing Runner architecture and rollout work. It
does not introduce a separate execution system.
**Additional context**
This pull request is based on the merged #12691 and #12685 stack. It
also closes the delayed security-review findings reported on #12691 by
binding qualified ACPX and OpenCode launch artifacts to the bytes
actually executed. A GitHub search for managed agent, AgentCore, and
Claude managed work found no duplicate public issue or pull request.
## What Changed
- Add Claude Managed Agents and AWS AgentCore provider executors to
runnerd.
- Add qualified managed and remote profile storage, routes, OpenAPI
contracts, CLI commands, and migration 0237.
- Validate profile ownership, enabled state, exact qualified revision,
model, agent version, and secret binding before persistence and
recovery.
- Persist durable provider session and owned skill state for
restart-safe cleanup.
- Reconcile uncertain create responses and delete remote sessions before
owned skills.
- Track cumulative provider usage and enforce positive session spend
caps.
- Recover interrupted AgentCore usage at the next turn boundary by
charging the prior invocation ceiling exactly once; keep the session
gated until an explicit monotonic budget raise.
- Isolate AgentCore AWS configuration from host profiles and
credential-process/SSO configuration while preserving workload identity.
- Require OpenCode 1.18.17 and fixed build-owned provider-pack artifact
paths; remove the ambient executable override.
- Snapshot and content-verify ACPX and OpenCode commands, scripts, and
provider executables before launch. Linux executes sealed inherited
descriptors; macOS uses authenticated private snapshots with retry-safe
rematerialization at the spawn boundary.
- Persist canonical ACPX and OpenCode launch-profile digests, reject
drift across fresh recovery, and make recovery failures sticky.
- Close and journal unsafe ACPX active-turn recovery before any provider
bootstrap or reconnect.
- Add managed provider fields to the Runner configuration UI and
permission projection.
- Preserve the default-off `enableNativeRunner` experimental flag.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Focused managed server, database, CLI, Runner TypeScript, Rust,
Claude, AgentCore, ACPX, OpenCode, process-supervisor, and
durable-recovery tests passed.
- `cargo test -p paperclip-runner-core --lib --locked` (160 tests)
- `cargo check --workspace --all-targets --locked`
- Native Codex integration tests passed (60 tests); native provider
tests passed (7 tests); server native-runtime tests passed (87 tests).
- Verified-launch replacement, nested-spawn retry, exact-version,
profile-drift, sticky-failure, and no-bootstrap active-recovery tests
passed.
- `git diff --check`
- The PR changes 91 files. `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged. The Rust
workspace lockfile adds the approved `rustix` dependency used for safe
descriptor handling while `#![forbid(unsafe_code)]` remains enabled.
## Risks
- The provider APIs can change while they are in beta. Exact
qualification and fail-closed recovery checks limit drift.
- Remote cleanup can fail after a partial create. Durable ownership
inventories and retry-safe deletion preserve recovery state.
- Migration 0237 adds profile tables. The generated migration and
snapshot pass the repository migration checks.
- Managed execution can incur provider cost. Positive default spend caps
and explicit retention acknowledgement limit accidental use.
- An interrupted AgentCore invocation without final metadata is
conservatively charged to its active session ceiling. This can overstate
cost, but cannot undercount it; later work requires an explicit budget
increase.
- Linux qualified launches use sealed memory descriptors. macOS lacks
executable-descriptor APIs, so the runner uses owner-only private
snapshots and minimizes linked-path lifetime; hostile same-UID processes
remain outside the documented local-host trust boundary.
- The global Runner feature remains default-off.
> 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 tool use, code execution, and subagent review.
## 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.
> - Agent execution currently uses direct adapters inside the server
process.
> - The proposed Paperclip Runner adds a separate process and a new
protocol boundary.
> - This boundary needs clear trust, recovery, rollout, and
compatibility rules before code lands.
> - Large runner changes are difficult to review as one pull request.
> - This pull request defines the first small boundary for the runner
series.
> - The benefit is a stable design contract for later implementation
pull requests.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Issue type**
Missing documentation.
**Where is the issue?**
The repository does not have a concise architecture decision or
compatibility contract for Paperclip Runner.
**What's wrong?**
The available runner design material is too large for normal review. It
mixes architecture, implementation history, test evidence, and deferred
work. Reviewers need a short statement of the process boundary, trust
model, rollout behavior, and direct-adapter compatibility rules.
**Suggested fix**
Add one architecture decision record and one compatibility document.
Keep implementation details and campaign evidence out of this pull
request.
Related public work: Refs #11041, #11297, #11634, #11639, #11640, and
#11962. This pull request is the first small replacement in the new
review series for #11962.
## What Changed
- Added an architecture decision for the runner process, PRP v1
transport, semantic tools, durable recovery, and additive server
integration.
- Added a compatibility and rollout contract for the default-off
adapter, existing direct adapters, persisted native runs, and the task
page.
- Defined the initial package and provider limits. The first production
provider is Codex only.
- Defined acceptance checks for later implementation pull requests.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` passed with Node 24.19.0 and pnpm
9.15.4.
- `pnpm check:node-version` passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm build` passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed.
- The pull request changes 2 files.
- `pnpm test:run` completed with 4,686 passing tests and 30 failures in
unchanged master paths. The failures reproduce macOS path aliases,
invalid generated port values, and local listener behavior. This
documentation-only change does not touch those paths. Linux CI must pass
before this pull request is ready.
- All applicable GitHub Actions and security scans passed. The Storybook
visual job skipped because this documentation-only change does not match
its paths.
- Greptile completed at 5/5 with no actionable comments.
## Risks
Low implementation risk. This pull request changes documentation only. A
later implementation can still diverge from the contract. Each later
pull request must prove its behavior against these compatibility rules.
I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This design supports the governed tool and
control-plane direction. It does not add an overlapping user feature.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 was used. The exact serving model ID and context
size were not exposed. The model used high reasoning, repository tools,
GitHub tools, and local code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [ ] 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
Dotta