## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The runner package already provides the production protocol and
execution spine.
> - Contributors still need stable SDK surfaces, deterministic test
tools, and local inspection tools.
> - Those surfaces share generated contracts and must change as one
package boundary.
> - This pull request adds the package-local SDK, labs, examples, and
drift checks.
> - The benefit is a reviewable developer platform that does not change
application execution selection.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/paperclip-runner` — runner SDK, conformance tools, and
developer tooling.
**Problem or motivation**
The production runner spine is present, but package consumers cannot
build deterministic integrations, inspect sessions, or verify
provider-neutral behavior through supported surfaces.
**Proposed solution**
Add browser, React, standalone, live-session, scenario, conformance, and
evaluation surfaces. Add generated contract inventories and
package-local verification scripts. Keep production application routing
unchanged.
**Alternatives considered**
We considered splitting each generated catalog, SDK surface, and demo
into separate pull requests. Those changes share exports, fixtures, and
drift gates. Splitting them would create intermediate package states
that do not build.
**Roadmap alignment**
No overlapping item appears in `ROADMAP.md`. This work extends the
runner package that is already on `master`.
## What Changed
- Add browser, React, standalone, live-session, and issue-thread SDK
surfaces.
- Add deterministic mock control-plane, scenario, conformance, replay,
and evaluation tools.
- Add bounded Codex, OpenCode, and ACPX development transports and
fixtures.
- Keep deferred managed-provider execution fail-closed. Persisted
compatibility data remains readable.
- Add generated capability inventories with their source files and drift
checks.
- Add examples, package documentation, browser checks, and
clean-consumer checks.
- Preserve the reviewed protocol bounds, replay compatibility aliases,
process environment isolation, and semantic redaction limits.
- Update the ACPX package patch that the existing workspace patch
registry already tracks.
- Do not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`, repository workflows, server runtime
selection, or the application UI.
## Verification
GitHub Actions is the verification authority for this pull request. The
repository CI, package TypeScript and Rust checks, package tests,
generated-output drift checks, browser checks, security scans, and
Greptile review must pass on the exact head.
Local test suites were not run because this series uses parallel GitHub
Actions for verification.
## Risks
This is a large greenfield package change. The main risks are public
export drift, generated-output drift, and optional React consumer
compatibility. Package boundary checks, clean-consumer checks, and
browser tests cover those risks. Production adapter selection and server
execution are outside this pull request.
## Stack
1. **This PR:** runner SDK and developer tooling.
2. [Codex production server
integration](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12616).
3. [Provider-neutral task-thread
UI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12617).
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, high-reasoning mode, with 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 described the issue in-PR following the feature request
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
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## 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 runner package defines a provider-neutral protocol and semantic
action catalog.
> - Catalog membership alone must not grant access to an action.
> - Each run needs current company, actor, task, claim, mode, and
application-binding authority.
> - Mutating actions also need safe retry behavior and durable receipts.
> - This pull request adds a package-local authority and dispatch layer.
> - The benefit is a small and testable trust boundary before server
integration lands.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #11962
This pull request replaces one bounded part of the archived large runner
change.
## What Changed
- Add run-scoped tool projection and optional tool discovery.
- Require an explicit application binding before an action is visible.
- Intersect actor claims with claims delegated to the run.
- Recheck company, actor, task, mode, state, role, claim, and policy
authority before each call.
- Validate action input and output with the canonical catalog schemas.
- Redact protected values and keep raw tool content out of semantic
receipts.
- Require atomic idempotency claims for mutating actions.
- Replay exact completed retries and reject changed or concurrent
retries.
- Recover a durable completed receipt if the primary receipt commit
fails, without re-executing the mutation.
- Add bounded authorization records and PRP semantic input and result
receipts.
- Document that this change adds no server binding or production tool
installation.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm build`
- 60 package TypeScript tests pass.
- 56 Rust unit and integration tests pass.
- Protocol, replay, and cross-language conformance checks pass.
- `pnpm test:run` completed with 4,684 passing and 19 skipped tests. It
reproduced 32 local baseline failures across 9 unchanged server files;
all corresponding hosted test shards pass.
- Every applicable GitHub Actions gate passes. The Storybook job skipped
because this PR has no UI changes.
- Socket and Snyk pass with no findings. Superagent completed neutral
with zero annotations because its external sandbox did not start within
120 seconds.
- Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved actionable comments.
- The diff changes 11 files.
## Risks
The main risk is an authorization or idempotency error at the tool
boundary. The dispatcher fails closed for malformed authority,
unavailable receipt storage, stale authority, unauthorized actions,
protected input, invalid binding output, and unrecoverable receipt
completion. The receipt store must recover a completed mutation outcome
idempotently if its primary commit fails; otherwise the claim remains
reserved for operator recovery rather than allowing automated
re-execution. Unbound actions are absent. No server or provider installs
these tools in this change. Existing adapters and application behavior
do not change.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. Agentic coding mode used repository tools, code
execution, and automated tests.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run the affected tests locally and they pass; full-suite
baseline exceptions are documented above
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Dotta