## 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>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses workspace manifests to declare package dependencies.
> - The lockfile records each workspace link for repeatable installs.
> - PR #12469 added `@paperclipai/shared` to the Grok local adapter
manifest.
> - The `master` lockfile did not include this new workspace link.
> - A frozen install requires the manifest and lockfile to match.
> - This pull request regenerates the lockfile with the repository
workflow.
> - The benefit is a repeatable frozen install from `master`.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12469
## What Changed
- Added the `@paperclipai/shared` workspace link to the Grok local
adapter importer in `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Verification
- Ran `CI=true pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` successfully.
- Ran the full pull request CI suite under Node.js 24. All 23 jobs
passed.
## Risks
- Low risk. This pull request changes only one lockfile importer.
- The package manifest already declares the dependency.
> 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 (`gpt-5`). The runtime does not expose the
context limit. Agentic reasoning, repository tools, API tools, and code
execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] 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: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip uses adapters to connect agents and model providers to its
control plane
> - The sandbox login panel supports displayed-code login for selected
adapters
> - Grok users need the same login path and a private credential home
for later runs
> - This pull request adds Grok support to the shared device-login path
and preserves the existing Codex path
> - The benefit is one secure login flow for both adapters with
company-scoped credential storage
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Agent or provider**
Grok Local needs displayed-code login support in the sandbox login
panel.
**Why this adapter is useful**
This change lets users sign in to Grok from the sandbox login panel. It
also gives later Grok runs access to the stored credential.
**How the agent is invoked**
The Grok local adapter uses its login command through the shared
displayed-code login flow. Later runs receive the managed home through
`GROK_HOME`.
**Additional context**
The change uses adapter-scoped login lifecycle handling. It stores the
credential in a company-scoped directory with mode `0700`, and it stores
the credential file with mode `0600`.
## What Changed
- Rename the shared device-login modules to adapter-neutral names.
- Scope the shared login lifecycle to a closed adapter set.
- Return the device-login URL that the provider prints.
- Add the Grok prompt parser, login command, capability, and login panel
entry.
- Store the Grok credential in a private, company-scoped home directory.
- Pass `GROK_HOME` to later Grok runs.
- Add tests for the Grok adapter, the Daytona sandbox provider, the
server login path, and the user interface.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm vitest run
packages/adapters/grok-local/src/server/adapter-auth-promotion.test.ts`.
- Run the Grok adapter package suite.
- Run the Daytona sandbox provider suite.
- Run the server device-login suites.
- Run the user interface suite.
- Confirm the full CI suite passes.
## Risks
The change extends shared login lifecycle code to another adapter. A
regression could affect Codex login. The credential path uses explicit
`chmod` calls to keep the directory at mode `0700` and the file at mode
`0600`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime used tool calls and code review
support. The runtime did not provide a context-window value.
## 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
- [ ] 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 test suites verify agent permissions and route behavior
> - The agent-permissions route suite rebuilt its full module graph for
every test
> - CPU load made that repeated work exceed the test timeout and caused
intermittent failures
> - This pull request loads the route module graph once for the file and
resets each mock before every test
> - The benefit is faster, stable test execution with the same test
coverage and isolation
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
`server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts` failed
intermittently in continuous integration. The suite reset modules and
re-imported the route module graph for every test. Under CPU load, one
import took seconds instead of milliseconds and caused an expected
response to become an HTTP 500.
**Expected behavior**
The suite should run all 54 cases without intermittent timeout failures.
Each test should keep isolated mock state.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run `npx vitest run
server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts`.
2. Repeat the file run under high CPU load.
3. Compare the failure rate and run time before and after this change.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`c4d1af4216f174a92823ca3a20e0717c54371dd5`
**Deployment mode**
Built from source.
**Installation method**
Built from source with pnpm.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This change affects a server test suite.
**Database mode**
Not database-related.
## What Changed
- Load the route module graph one time for the describe block with the
existing `hoistModuleGraph` helper.
- Make `createApp` synchronous and read the hoisted graph.
- Remove per-test `vi.resetModules()` and the 26 `vi.doUnmock(...)`
calls.
- Keep stable mock objects and reset each route-facing mock before every
test.
- Keep all 44 `it` blocks and 54 parameterized cases.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts`
passes and reports 54 tests.
- `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` passes with 0 errors.
- Under 32 concurrent CPU-bound loops, the file passed 15 of 15 runs
after this change, with 54 of 54 cases on each run.
- The same test failed 1 of 15 runs before this change.
- Per-run wall-clock time changed from about 29–34 seconds to about 8–10
seconds.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change affects test setup only.
- The hoisted mock objects keep stable identity, and `beforeEach` resets
every route-facing mock.
- The registration step arms no mock implementations, and the test
adapter still unregisters in a `finally` block.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime provided tool use and code execution.
The runtime did not provide a context window value.
## 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 trusted GitHub Actions workflows to verify each pull
request.
> - The caller pins the reusable workflow to an immutable merged commit.
> - Native stacked pull requests can inherit a stale lockfile from a
parent layer.
> - Pull request #12461 added safe merge-tree lockfile regeneration to
the trusted workflow.
> - The caller must now select that merged workflow version.
> - This pull request advances the immutable pin to the merge commit
from #12461.
> - The benefit is reliable verification for native stacked pull
requests.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12461
## What Changed
- Pin the trusted pull request workflow to merged commit
`1da6b37fc56dacf5e7ffbd31da35756a1cba41f8`.
- Activate stale lockfile regeneration for native stacked pull requests.
## Verification
- `actionlint .github/workflows/pr.yml`
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
## Risks
- Low risk. This changes only the immutable reusable-workflow pin.
- The target commit is merged into `master` and passed all required
checks.
- The target workflow adds one lockfile-only install to the policy job.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with model `gpt-5`, reasoning, tool use, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The server tests cover issue routes and execution workspace state
> - The closed-workspace route suite reloads a mocked module graph
before each test
> - CPU contention can bind one test to the real service and hide a 500
response
> - This pull request loads the mocked graph once and checks exact
success statuses
> - The benefit is a stable suite that detects route failures instead of
accepting them
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The closed-workspace issue route suite reloaded and unmocked the module
graph before each test. Under CPU contention, a route could bind to the
real execution-workspaces service. The request then returned `500`,
while a weak assertion accepted the result.
**Expected behavior**
The suite must use the configured service mocks for every test. Each
success case must assert its exact expected HTTP status.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run the closed-workspace route suite many times in parallel.
2. Use CPU contention during the run.
3. Observe intermittent failures or weak assertions that accept `500`
responses.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Commit `0d5686b942f1d1366112cb922f95e5c8622bb9a6`.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source with the server test runner.
**Installation method**
Built from source.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific.
**Database mode**
Not database-related.
**Additional context**
This pull request relates to
[#11472](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/11472). It does
not change product code.
## What Changed
- Load the mocked service graph once per file with `hoistModuleGraph`.
- Remove the per-test module reset and unmock cycle.
- Assert exact success statuses for the three affected responses.
- Add the missing `refreshReopenPendingConsumption` mock.
- Use one named timeout constant for every `vi.waitFor` call.
- Replace `setImmediate` barriers with fake-timer advances.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/issue-closed-workspace-routes.test.ts` passes 12 of
12 tests locally.
- A 200-sample sweep with 20 parallel copies passed with zero failures.
- An independent 100-sample sweep with 20 parallel copies passed with
zero failures.
- `npx tsc --noEmit -p server` reports the same 61 pre-existing errors
with and without this change.
- GitHub Actions must run the full server suite for final verification.
## Risks
Low risk. This pull request changes one test file and does not change
product code. The stricter assertions can expose a real route failure
that the old suite hid.
## Model Used
Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code review assistance. The exact context
window and reasoning mode are not available in this handoff.
## 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 adapter layer carries sandbox requests to host processes.
> - The HTTP/2 bridge used one process-wide byte ledger for all routes.
> - One busy route could exhaust that shared budget and move another
route to file transport.
> - This pull request gives each host retention site a fixed byte bound
and limits concurrent HTTP/2 streams.
> - The benefit is local protection: one route cannot consume the byte
budget of another route.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The HTTP/2 bridge used one aggregate byte ledger for retained bytes
across all routes. A busy route could exhaust the shared budget and
force an unrelated route to use file transport.
**Expected behavior**
Each route should protect its own retained bytes. A reset on one HTTP/2
stream should cancel only that stream's host forward.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start the HTTP/2 bridge with multiple sandbox routes.
2. Send enough retained data through one route to reach the aggregate
byte limit.
3. Send a request through a sibling route.
4. Observe that the sibling route can fall back to file transport
because the first route used the shared ledger.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`47639e227e78e3c5e0dd1a3c0e2d792fe86895a3`
**Deployment mode**
Built from source with the adapter-utils and server test suites.
## What Changed
- Bound each host retention site with a fixed local byte limit.
- Limited concurrent live HTTP/2 streams with one built-in stream limit.
- Bound each host forward and response-body read to its own HTTP/2
stream lifetime.
- Removed the process-wide byte ledger, its environment override, its
metrics, and its file-transport fallbacks.
- Added tests for the stream limit, host body budget, and sibling-stream
cancellation.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm vitest run --project adapter-utils`.
- Confirm that 996 adapter-utils tests pass.
- Confirm that `test_live_forward_work_never_passes_the_stream_limit`
passes.
- Confirm that `test_the_host_body_budget_matches_the_stream_limit`
passes.
- Confirm that the sibling-stream cancellation test passes.
- Run `pnpm tsc --noEmit`.
- Confirm that all pull request checks pass.
## Risks
The bridge no longer uses a process-wide byte ledger. A local bound or
stream limit that is too low can reject or delay valid work. The tests
cover the new limits and stream cancellation behavior.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 Codex. Runtime model ID: GPT-5. The model used code
execution and repository tools. The runtime does not expose the context
window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` /
`Closes: #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the
relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The CLI test suite uses embedded Postgres for worktree checks.
> - Several tests start a cluster and run migrations on each test.
> - Runner contention can make this cost class exceed small hand-written
time budgets.
> - A timed-out test can also leave the cluster alive while cleanup
removes its data directory.
> - This pull request gives the cost class one measured timeout and
registers cleanup for the timeout path.
> - The benefit is stable tests and fewer orphaned embedded Postgres
processes.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue tracks this defect. Related PRs #10987 and #10961
address wider embedded-Postgres test setup issues. This pull request
addresses the CLI timeout and cleanup path described below.
**What happened?**
Five CLI tests used different hand-written time budgets while they
started embedded Postgres and ran migrations. Runner contention made one
test exceed its budget. A timeout also skipped the `finally` cleanup
path and left a Postgres process alive.
**Expected behavior**
Each embedded-Postgres test gets a budget that covers measured runner
contention. Cleanup stops the cluster before the test removes its data
directory, including after a timeout.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run `npx vitest run cli/src/__tests__/worktree.test.ts` on a
contended runner.
2. Observe the embedded-Postgres tests take longer than their small
hand-written budgets.
3. Inspect the process list after a timeout and observe an orphaned
Postgres process.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The defect reproduces on `master` before this pull request.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source with Vitest.
**Installation method**
Built from source with pnpm.
## What Changed
- Export `EMBEDDED_POSTGRES_TEST_TIMEOUT_MS` from the embedded-Postgres
test helper.
- Apply the shared timeout to every test defined by
`itEmbeddedPostgres`.
- Replace the five hand-written timeout values in `worktree.test.ts`.
- Register temporary-directory removal and cluster stop with
`onTestFinished` in the correct order.
- Restore the working directory during timeout cleanup.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run cli/src/__tests__/worktree.test.ts` passes 63 tests.
- `npx vitest run cli/src` passes 424 tests across 59 files.
- `tsc --noEmit` in `cli/` adds no new error in the touched files.
- CI must pass on the pull request head.
- Greptile must report 5/5 with no unresolved blocking thread.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change affects test helpers and test cleanup only.
- The shared budget can lengthen a failing test before Vitest reports
the failure.
- The cleanup order depends on Vitest callback order, which the tests
now use explicitly.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The model used tool calls and code review support.
The context window size and internal reasoning mode were not exposed in
this run.
## 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 trusted GitHub Actions workflows to verify every pull
request
> - Native stacked pull requests use another pull request branch as
their base
> - A parent layer can change a package manifest without committing
`pnpm-lock.yaml`
> - A child layer can inherit that manifest change without changing a
manifest itself
> - The current policy skips lockfile regeneration for that child and
downstream frozen installs fail
> - This pull request validates the complete merge tree and shares a
regenerated lockfile only when needed
> - The benefit is reliable stacked pull request verification without
weakening the trusted workflow boundary
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A stacked child pull request inherited a package manifest change from
its parent. The child did not change a manifest itself. The policy job
skipped lockfile regeneration. Downstream jobs tried to restore an
artifact that did not exist and then failed during frozen dependency
installation.
**Expected behavior**
The policy job must validate the complete pull request merge tree. It
must upload a regenerated lockfile when the checked-in lockfile is
stale, including on a stacked child layer.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a parent pull request that changes `package.json` without
committing `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
2. Create a child pull request on that branch without another manifest
change.
3. Run the trusted pull request workflow for the child.
4. Observe that frozen dependency installation fails because no
`pr-lockfile` artifact exists.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`f173ee09fa5c2ced7806bba47b54c3df853ab4df`
**Deployment mode**
GitHub Actions trusted pull request workflow.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This is a core CI workflow bug.
## What Changed
- Regenerate the lockfile from every checked-out merge tree.
- Compare the generated lockfile with the checked-in copy before upload.
- Download the artifact only when the policy job reports that it
uploaded one.
- Fail closed when a reported artifact is missing.
- Add a workflow contract test for stacked lockfile handling.
- Keep the caller pinned to the last merged trusted SHA; after this
implementation merges, a separate activation PR will advance the
immutable pin to its merge commit.
## Verification
- `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml`
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
## Risks
- The policy job runs one lockfile-only install for every pull request.
This can add a small amount of CI time.
- A missing artifact now fails immediately when the policy job reports
an upload. This is intentional because it exposes workflow corruption.
- No runtime or product behavior changes.
- The implementation/activation split is intentional: unmerged
PR-authored workflow code must never execute on trusted runners.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with model `gpt-5`, reasoning, tool use, and code
execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Adapter utilities start and control agent sessions.
> - The ACP startup handshake can stay pending when the sandbox
transport closes.
> - A pending handshake keeps the run active and prevents a clear
operator result.
> - This pull request bounds the handshake and fences its abandoned
promise.
> - The result gives each startup failure a terminal state and a safe
host-authored diagnostic.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No matching public issue or pull request appeared in the GitHub search
for this failure. The issue details follow.
**What happened?**
The adapter engine awaited `runtime.ensureSession()` without a startup
bound. A lost sandbox transport could leave the await pending.
**Expected behavior**
The engine must end the run when the startup deadline expires or the
duplex transport closes. A late session result must not reopen the
settled run.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start an ACP-backed agent run.
2. Keep the ACP initialization call pending.
3. Let the startup deadline expire or close the duplex transport.
4. Confirm that the run reaches a terminal state and that a late session
result does not reopen it.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`66e1c0df8b23cb8354b36dd446d9548dc4389191` merge base.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev (`pnpm dev`).
**Installation method**
Built from source (`pnpm dev`).
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Custom / external plugin adapter.
**Database mode**
Not database-related.
**Relevant logs or output**
The new tests use fixed host-authored diagnostics for handshake guard
failures and late close failures.
**Additional context**
The change updates the execution semantics document and adds regression
coverage. The three existing failures in `execute.test.ts` also occur at
the merge base.
## What Changed
- Bound `runtime.ensureSession()` with a startup deadline and a duplex
transport loss check.
- Added terminal error codes for handshake timeout and transport loss.
- Fenced late session resolution and rejection so the settled run has
one owner.
- Suppressed sandbox-controlled diagnostic values on the guard-failure
and late-close paths.
- Added regression tests for timeout, transport loss, late resolution,
and late close rejection.
- Documented the startup live-path contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec tsc --noEmit` exits 0.
- The engine test suite runs from the repository root.
- The new regression cases pass.
- The three known failures remain the only failures and also fail at the
merge base. The board approved this pre-existing test exception.
- Cold start and session resume cases pass.
- All required GitHub checks pass.
- Greptile reports 5/5 with no open P2 findings, recommendations, or
follow-ups.
## Risks
The startup guard changes only the ACP startup path. A slow but valid
startup can now end at the configured deadline. The fence closes a late
handle once and records fixed host-authored diagnostics.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, current model version, tool use and code execution,
with the full task context.
## 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. Three pre-existing failures remain and
have an approved exception.
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull request checks to protect changes.
> - The trusted workflow selects GitHub or AWS runners.
> - Pull request #12462 removed an unreliable stale API equality.
> - The public caller must pin an immutable trusted workflow commit.
> - This pull request changes only that pin.
> - The benefit is correct AWS routing for trusted stacked pull
requests.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12339
Refs #12462
## What Changed
- Pin the thin pull request caller to
f9c32513b2.
## Verification
- actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml
- github-runners/tests/test-workflow.sh .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml
.github/workflows/pr.yml
- The runner group authorizes this SHA and all in-flight prior SHAs.
## Risks
- Low risk. This changes one immutable workflow reference.
- Older workflow SHAs remain authorized while queued and active jobs
finish.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with reasoning and terminal tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have linked existing public pull requests
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket ID
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull request checks to protect changes.
> - The trusted CI gate selects GitHub or AWS runners.
> - GitHub can return an old pull request base SHA after the live base
advances.
> - The signed event, live Git ref, ancestry, and merge parents provide
the required proof.
> - The stale API field rejects a safe run even when those proofs pass.
> - This pull request removes that unreliable equality.
> - The benefit is correct AWS routing for trusted stacked pull
requests.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12339
Refs #12459
## What Changed
- Stop treating pull request base.sha as a current-state signal.
- Keep the signed event base SHA and live ref descendant check.
- Keep the live base or synthetic base merge-parent proof.
- Keep all numeric identity, repository, head SHA, and triggering actor
checks.
## Verification
- actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml
- github-runners/tests/test-workflow.sh .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml
.github/workflows/pr.yml
- The corrected gate selected the Fleet label with the exact live event
data from PR #12339 run 33201610330.
## Risks
- The pull request API base SHA can be stale and is no longer compared.
- Replaced ancestry, a changed head, a changed merge parent, and a
changed merge tree still fail closed.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with reasoning and terminal tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have linked existing public pull requests
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket ID
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation in the operations repository
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull request checks to protect changes.
> - The trusted CI workflow selects GitHub or AWS runners.
> - Pull request #12459 fixed validation when a stacked base advances.
> - The public caller must use an immutable trusted workflow SHA.
> - This pull request changes only that SHA.
> - The benefit is automatic AWS routing for the affected trusted stack
runs.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12339
Refs #12459
## What Changed
- Pin the thin pull request caller to
f929355fb9.
## Verification
- actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml
- github-runners/tests/test-workflow.sh .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml
.github/workflows/pr.yml
- The runner group already authorizes the old and new exact workflow
SHAs.
## Risks
- Low risk. This changes one immutable workflow reference.
- The old workflow SHA remains authorized while current runs finish.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with reasoning and terminal tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have linked existing public pull requests
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket ID
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull request checks to protect changes.
> - The trusted CI workflow selects GitHub or AWS runners.
> - Stacked pull requests can advance their base branch while a gate
waits.
> - The gate already proves that the live base descends from the event
base.
> - An earlier exact base check rejects that safe state before the
ancestry check runs.
> - This pull request removes the conflicting check and verifies live
API consistency.
> - The benefit is automatic AWS routing for trusted stacked pull
requests without weaker identity checks.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12339
Refs #12457
## What Changed
- Allow the live pull request base SHA to advance from the signed event
base snapshot.
- Require the pull request API base SHA to match the live Git ref during
validation.
- Keep the numeric author, sender, and triggering actor checks.
- Keep descendant ancestry and synthetic merge validation.
## Verification
- actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml
- github-runners/tests/test-workflow.sh .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml
.github/workflows/pr.yml
- The routing suite covers a live stacked base advance and a base change
during validation.
## Risks
- A trusted stacked run can use a newer descendant base than its signed
event snapshot.
- Replaced ancestry still fails closed.
- A live base change during gate validation still fails closed.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with reasoning and terminal tool use.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked existing issues or 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
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 in the operations repository
- [x] I have considered and documented risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Pull request checks protect the application and its contributors.
> - The trusted CI gate must validate both direct and stacked GitHub
merge shapes.
> - Pull request #12457 added that validation at an immutable master
SHA.
> - The active caller still pins the prior workflow version.
> - This pull request pins the caller to the newly authorized SHA.
> - The benefit is safe automatic AWS routing for trusted stacked pull
requests.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12457
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The active caller uses a gate that fails closed on GitHub synthetic
stacked merge parents.
**Subsystem affected**
GitHub Actions pull request routing.
**Current behavior**
Trusted stacked pull requests run on GitHub-hosted runners after the
merge-parent check rejects the synthetic base merge.
**Proposed behavior**
The caller uses the authorized workflow SHA
7b199fcafa.
**Reason and benefit**
The change lets approved stack jobs use the 100-runner AWS Fleet while
all numeric identity and live-state checks remain active.
**Breaking changes**
None for untrusted contributors. Their jobs continue on GitHub-hosted
runners.
**Additional context**
The runner group authorizes both this SHA and the previous SHA during
rotation.
## What Changed
- Pin the thin caller to the authorized stacked-merge validator SHA.
## Verification
- Ran actionlint on both pull request workflows.
- Ran the external routing suite against the trusted workflow and
caller.
- Verified that the runner group authorizes both immutable workflow
versions.
## Risks
A bad pin can stop CI. The target is on master, the previous SHA stays
authorized, and the caller change is a one-line reversible pin update.
> For core feature work, check ROADMAP.md first and discuss it in #dev
before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work
may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See
CONTRIBUTING.md.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size
are not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, GitHub API access,
and local code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have linked an existing public item and described the issue
in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Pull request checks protect the application and its contributors.
> - The trusted CI gate verifies signed event data against live GitHub
state.
> - GitHub gives a stacked pull request a synthetic merge commit for its
base stack.
> - The current validator expects the raw base SHA as the first merge
parent.
> - That assumption sends safe stacked pull requests to GitHub-hosted
runners.
> - This pull request validates the synthetic base merge and its
ancestry explicitly.
> - The benefit is safe automatic AWS routing for approved stacked pull
requests.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12455
Refs #12456
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The trusted runner gate validates merge commits for master-based pull
requests but rejects GitHub synthetic base merges for stacked pull
requests.
**Subsystem affected**
GitHub Actions pull request identity and merge-state validation.
**Current behavior**
A trusted stacked pull request passes all numeric identity checks. The
gate fails closed because the first event merge parent is a GitHub
synthetic base merge instead of the raw base snapshot SHA.
**Proposed behavior**
The gate verifies the current base-ref tip, base-snapshot ancestry,
identical event and live merge parents, the child head parent, the
synthetic base merge parents, and identical event and live merge trees.
**Reason and benefit**
The change preserves fail-closed live-state validation while allowing
approved stacked pull requests to use the isolated AWS Fleet.
**Breaking changes**
None for untrusted contributors. Trusted stacked pull requests can
select AWS after the caller pins this workflow version.
**Additional context**
GitHub builds a stacked test merge in two steps. It first merges the
stack base into its own current base. It then uses that synthetic commit
as the first parent of the child test merge.
## What Changed
- Fetch and validate the current base branch ref.
- Require the event base snapshot to remain an ancestor of that ref.
- Validate direct and synthetic base merge parent shapes.
- Preserve the existing child-head, live-state, merge-tree, repository,
and actor checks.
## Verification
- Ran actionlint on the trusted workflow.
- Ran the external routing suite.
- Added positive coverage for the GitHub stacked merge shape.
- Added fail-closed coverage for replaced base ancestry and a synthetic
merge that omits the current base ref.
- Replayed the checks against the live merge shape for pull request
#12340.
## Risks
The gate has more GitHub API reads. Its five-minute timeout and
fail-closed behavior limit the effect of API errors. The accepted
synthetic commit must be the same in the event and live merge, must
include the current base branch as a direct parent, and must produce the
same merge tree.
> For core feature work, check ROADMAP.md first and discuss it in #dev
before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work
may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See
CONTRIBUTING.md.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size
are not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, GitHub API access,
and local code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have linked existing public items and described the issue in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Pull request checks protect the application and its contributors.
> - The trusted CI workflow sends approved contributors to isolated AWS
runners.
> - Pull request #12455 added safe support for non-master base branches.
> - The active caller still filters for master and uses the previous
immutable workflow SHA.
> - This pull request removes the base-branch trigger filter and pins
the caller to the authorized stack-aware SHA.
> - The benefit is that trusted stacked pull requests can use the AWS
fleet automatically.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12455
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The active pull request caller only triggers for master and selects the
master-only trusted workflow version.
**Subsystem affected**
GitHub Actions pull request routing.
**Current behavior**
Trusted stacked pull requests either do not trigger the default caller
or use a branch-local older caller. Their heavy jobs remain in the
GitHub-hosted queue.
**Proposed behavior**
The caller triggers for every pull request base branch. It uses the
authorized stack-aware workflow at full SHA
d6b33d6c16.
**Reason and benefit**
The change sends heavy jobs from approved stacked pull requests to the
100-runner AWS Fleet. Unlisted contributors still receive the normal
GitHub-hosted checks.
**Breaking changes**
Trusted pull requests with non-master base branches now use AWS.
Untrusted pull requests continue to use GitHub-hosted runners.
**Additional context**
The runner group currently authorizes both the old and new immutable
workflow SHAs. The old SHA stays authorized until outstanding runs
finish.
## What Changed
- Remove the caller base-branch filter so stacked pull requests trigger
CI.
- Pin the thin caller to the authorized stack-aware reusable workflow
SHA.
## Verification
- Ran actionlint on both pull request workflow files.
- Ran the external routing test suite against the new reusable workflow
and thin caller.
- Verified that the runner group authorizes both immutable SHAs and only
the Paperclip repository.
## Risks
A bad pin can stop pull request CI. The target SHA is on master,
contains the reviewed reusable workflow, and is already authorized
beside the prior SHA. This gives the rotation a rollback path. Every
untrusted run still uses a GitHub-hosted gate and route.
> For core feature work, check ROADMAP.md first and discuss it in #dev
before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work
may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See
CONTRIBUTING.md.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size
are not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, GitHub API access,
and local code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability
details
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have linked an existing public item and described the issue
in-PR
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Pull request checks protect the application and its contributors.
> - The trusted CI workflow sends approved contributors to isolated AWS
runners.
> - The workflow currently limits AWS routing to pull requests that
target master.
> - Stacked pull requests target another branch and stay in the GitHub
queue.
> - This pull request keeps the identity checks and accepts a live
nonempty base branch in the Paperclip repository.
> - The benefit is that trusted stacked pull requests can use the AWS
fleet automatically.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The trusted pull request runner gate currently sends only master-based
pull requests to AWS.
**Subsystem affected**
GitHub Actions pull request routing.
**Current behavior**
A trusted contributor can pass all numeric identity checks. The gate
still selects GitHub-hosted runners when the pull request targets
another branch in a stack.
**Proposed behavior**
The gate accepts any nonempty base branch in the Paperclip base
repository. It still verifies the live base ref, base SHA, head SHA,
merge SHA, author ID, sender ID, and triggering actor ID.
**Reason and benefit**
Large pull request stacks currently add all heavy jobs to the limited
GitHub-hosted queue. This change lets approved contributors use the
isolated AWS fleet for those jobs.
**Breaking changes**
Trusted pull requests that target a non-master branch now use AWS
instead of GitHub-hosted runners. Untrusted pull requests keep the
current GitHub-hosted route.
**Additional context**
Pull request #12339 is the master-based first item in a stack. Its child
pull requests show this queue pattern.
## What Changed
- Replace the master-only route check with a nonempty base-ref check.
Keep the existing base-repository and live-state checks.
## Verification
- Ran actionlint on .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml.
- Ran the external routing test suite. It passed the trusted
stacked-base case and all fail-closed identity cases.
## Risks
The AWS trust boundary now includes code from a non-master base branch
when the current pull request author, sender, and triggering actor are
all approved numeric GitHub IDs. An approved account can already submit
arbitrary head code. The runner remains isolated and has no production
access or repository secrets.
> For core feature work, check ROADMAP.md first and discuss it in #dev
before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work
may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See
CONTRIBUTING.md.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size
are not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, GitHub API access,
and local code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have 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
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Pull request checks protect the runtime and authorization boundaries
> - The same checks must produce the same result on GitHub and RunsOn
Ubuntu images
> - One runtime test assumed that a shell PID always owns the listening
socket
> - One watchdog test denied issue reads while it tried to test
assignment denial
> - These assumptions caused image-sensitive failures during the AWS
runner canary
> - This pull request tests the production contracts directly
> - The benefit is a reliable CI result across both runner images
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12350
## What Changed
- Verify stale service ownership through the existing process-group
ownership helper.
- Allow normal issue reads in the watchdog reassignment fixture.
- Assert that the watchdog reassignment reaches and denies the
`tasks:assign` guard.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts
-t "does not reuse a stopped auto-port service port while another
process owns it"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts -t
"still enforces normal assignment guards for watchdog reassignment"`
- Ran the complete issue agent mutation ownership suite six times. All
522 test executions passed.
- Ran the runtime regression case eight times. All eight test executions
passed.
## Risks
- Low risk. This pull request changes test fixtures and assertions only.
- The process-group assertion matches the ownership rule that the
runtime already uses.
- The watchdog fixture still denies `issue:mutate` and `tasks:assign`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 (`gpt-5.6-sol`). 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, or
Refs OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue
template
- [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 relevant tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes. No
documentation change is required for this test-only fix.
- [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.
> - Remote agent adapters use a process-session wrapper inside a
sandbox.
> - Some supported sandbox filesystems do not report inode creation
time.
> - The wrapper rejects a zero creation time before it launches the
agent.
> - This pull request accepts that filesystem shape and keeps the
existing change-time probe.
> - The benefit is that valid sandbox runs can start without a
birth-time field.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The remote process-session wrapper exited before it launched the agent
when the sandbox filesystem reported `birthtimeMs` as zero.
**Expected behavior**
The wrapper must start on a filesystem that does not report inode
creation time.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start the remote process-session wrapper.
2. Make `lstat()` report a zero `birthtimeMs` for its session directory.
3. Observe that the pre-fix wrapper terminates before the child process
starts.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced from `66e1c0df8b23cb8354b36dd446d9548dc4389191`.
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server with a remote sandbox runtime.
## What Changed
- Allow a zero reported creation time for process-session directories.
- Keep the probe that rejects a creation time copied from change time.
- Add a regression test that launches and stops a session with zero
birth time.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/execution-target-stdin-race.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck`
## Risks
A filesystem without creation time can reduce the precision of
sandbox-local path-swap detection. This change does not change host-file
or Paperclip API authority. A follow-up will review that larger security
posture alignment.
> I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This is a focused compatibility bug fix for
the existing sandbox-agent roadmap area.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex — GPT-5.6. The exact deployment suffix and context-window
size are not exposed. 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - New organizations create their first agent through the onboarding
wizard
> - The wizard does not show provider sign-in when a host credential is
absent or unknown
> - The create step also gives unclear feedback when the provider needs
authentication
> - This pull request adds a safe auth signal and a provider sign-in
step for sandbox drivers
> - The benefit is a clearer onboarding path with no token or account
data in the signal
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting (server API, shared types, and UI)
**Problem or motivation**
The onboarding wizard can fail when the selected provider needs
authentication. It does not tell the person how to complete sign-in.
**Proposed solution**
Add a status-only provider auth signal. Show the sign-in panel for
sandbox drivers when the signal says `absent` or `unknown`. Apply a
stored Claude login to the new agent and block creation when the adapter
test reports missing authentication.
**Alternatives considered**
The wizard could hide the sign-in panel when the signal read fails. This
would hide a needed action, so this pull request shows the panel when
the signal is unknown.
**Roadmap alignment**
The change supports the roadmap goal for scoped and audited credential
bindings.
**Additional context**
The auth signal returns only `present`, `absent`, or `unknown`. It never
returns a token, identifier, or account name.
## What Changed
- Add `GET /api/companies/:companyId/adapters/:type/auth-signal` with
company and permission checks.
- Add shared auth-signal types and the UI query path.
- Apply a stored Claude login by reference without reading its token.
- Show the provider sign-in panel only for sandbox drivers with
interactive terminal support.
- Block agent creation when the provider test reports missing
authentication.
- Add route, wizard, and end-to-end test coverage.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test adapter-auth-signal-routes`
passes 50 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui test OnboardingWizard` passes 69 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec tsc --noEmit` exits with code 0.
- The `e2e_shards` lane runs `tests/e2e/onboarding.spec.ts`.
## Risks
The route reads a host-local readiness signal. It returns `unknown` on
read errors and never exposes credential data. The UI may add a sign-in
step when the signal is unavailable.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, extended reasoning, tool use, and code execution.
The exact context window was not provided.
## 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>
## Summary
- validate the event base ref/SHA against the live PR state instead of
requiring the moving `master` branch tip to remain unchanged while a
hosted gate queues
- retain exact event/live merge parent and tree validation, plus
author/sender/rerun checks
## Canary finding
A seven-minute hosted-gate queue allowed `master` to advance. Requiring
the live branch tip to equal the event base snapshot would route
otherwise valid trusted runs back to GitHub-hosted indefinitely on a
busy repository.
## Validation
- actionlint and workflow-contract tests pass
- internal routing harness passes
- replaced PR base snapshot, stale head, changed merge parent/tree, and
untrusted actors all remain fail-closed
- AWS routing remains disabled during rotation
## Summary
- use `${{ github.sha }}` as the event merge commit validated by the
trusted gate
- retain exact base/head parent and identical-tree comparison against
the current live merge ref
## Canary finding
GitHub leaves `pull_request.merge_commit_sha` empty on some `opened`
payloads even though the workflow runs against a valid merge ref. The
gate safely fell back to GitHub-hosted and no EC2 instance launched.
## Validation
- `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml`
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
- internal routing harness passes and asserts `EVENT_MERGE_SHA` is
sourced from `${{ github.sha }}`
- AWS routing remains disabled during rotation
## Summary
- rotate the thin PR caller from
`3b295b05dc8c8dd82c12e4a9c6f721446c5cb2e8` to
`b88fadb0390d2113933d5d155f16b07cbd5dafee`
- keep both exact SHAs authorized during the rotation
- keep AWS routing disabled until the caller and boundary verify
## Validation
- `actionlint .github/workflows/pr.yml .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml`
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
- internal routing harness requires exactly one runner output per gate
execution
## Summary
- emit exactly one `runner` job output from the trusted gate
- write `ubuntu-latest` only inside fail-closed paths
- write the Fleet label only after every identity, PR-state,
merge-equivalence, and rerun-actor check passes
## Canary finding
The live gate reached the trusted success notice, but GitHub retained
the first of two duplicate `runner=` outputs, so policy still requested
`ubuntu-latest`. No EC2 instance launched. Routing was disabled
immediately.
## Validation
- `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml`
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
- internal routing harness passes and now requires exactly one runner
output in all cases
- AWS routing remains disabled during rotation
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The `doc/` tree is how a contributor learns the system
> - Section 11 of `doc/DEPLOYMENT-MODES.md` is a map to the other
documents
> - One entry on that map points at a file that is not there
> - Commit `9c7d9ded1` moved every plan into `doc/plans/` with a date
prefix, and this link kept the old name
> - This pull request updates the link to the current file name
> - The benefit is that a reader who follows the map arrives at the plan
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No issue exists. The problem is below.
**Issue type**
Docs. A link points at a file name that changed.
**Where is the issue?**
`doc/DEPLOYMENT-MODES.md`, line 176, in section 11 "Relationship to
Other Docs".
**What's wrong?**
The line reads:
```
- implementation plan: `doc/plans/deployment-auth-mode-consolidation.md`
```
That file is not in the repository. Commit `9c7d9ded1` ("docs: organize
plans into doc/plans
with date prefixes") renamed it to
`doc/plans/2026-02-23-deployment-auth-mode-consolidation.md`.
The renamed file is there today. The link text was not updated.
The other four entries in section 11 are correct. I checked each one:
`doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, `doc/DEVELOPING.md`, `doc/CLI.md` and
`doc/spec/invite-flow.md`
all exist.
**Suggested fix**
Use the new file name in the link. That is what this pull request does.
## What Changed
- `doc/DEPLOYMENT-MODES.md` line 176 now names
`doc/plans/2026-02-23-deployment-auth-mode-consolidation.md`
## Verification
Run this command. It prints the file, so the new name is correct:
```
ls doc/plans/2026-02-23-deployment-auth-mode-consolidation.md
```
Run this command. It prints nothing, so the old name is wrong:
```
ls doc/plans/deployment-auth-mode-consolidation.md
```
## Risks
Low risk. The change is one file name in one line of documentation. No
code changes.
## Model Used
Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-opus-5`, 1M context window,
extended thinking, with tool
use and code execution.
The path was found by [docproof](https://github.com/melbinjp/docproof),
an open source
checker that compares what documentation claims against what the
repository contains. A
person then read the document, checked the rename in `git log`, and
confirmed the other four
links in the same section.
## 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
- [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
One box stays unticked and I would rather say so than tick it. I did not
run the test suite
locally, because the change is one line of prose and no test reads it.
The other two were unticked when this opened, because CI and Greptile
had not run yet. Both
have now. **29 checks pass and 2 report `skipping`** (Contributor trust,
Storybook visual
regression); none fail. Greptile returned **5/5** with no P2s: *"The
documentation-only change
appears safe to merge. The new path exists ... and replaces an obsolete
path that no longer
exists."*
## Summary
- rotate the thin PR caller from
`d9fc93d8383ece6fba721881a7aba638867f4996` to
`3b295b05dc8c8dd82c12e4a9c6f721446c5cb2e8`
- keep both exact workflow SHAs authorized in the runner group during
the rotation
- keep `AWS_CI_ENABLED=false` until this caller is merged and verified
## Validation
- `actionlint .github/workflows/pr.yml .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml`
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
- full AWS/GitHub boundary verification passes with zero active runners
## Summary
- validate the live master ref and event base SHA before AWS routing
- accept GitHub synthetic merge commits only when the event and live
commits have the exact expected base/head parents and identical tree
- preserve fail-closed routing for malformed, stale, replaced, or
untrusted events
## Canary finding
A trusted reopened PR produced two synthetic merge SHAs with different
timestamps but identical current base/head parents and tree. The former
exact-SHA comparison safely fell back to GitHub-hosted runners, but
could not route a valid event to AWS.
## Validation
- `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml`
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
- real-event gate simulation selects the Fleet label for equivalent
merge commits
- negative simulations keep an untrusted sender and replaced head on
`ubuntu-latest`
- AWS routing remains disabled during rotation
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull request CI to validate each proposed change
> - The existing workflow defines every heavy job in a PR-controlled
file
> - A trusted reusable workflow now contains the synchronized CI
definition
> - The caller must use an immutable default-branch SHA
> - This pull request replaces the duplicate job list with that pinned
caller
> - The benefit is automatic secure runner selection without workflow
drift
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12436
Refs #12438
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves how the pull request workflow selects trusted CI capacity.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting CI automation.
**Current behavior**
The active workflow contains a duplicate list of all heavy jobs. It
cannot use the administrator-controlled runner gate.
**Proposed behavior**
The active workflow calls the synchronized trusted workflow at an
immutable SHA. The trusted workflow selects GitHub-hosted or isolated
AWS capacity from the validated contributor identity.
**Reason and benefit**
The thin caller prevents pull request changes from replacing the
external-runner security gate. It also keeps runner selection automatic.
**Breaking changes**
The check names gain the reusable workflow job prefix. AWS routing
remains disabled until the canary starts.
## What Changed
- Replaced the duplicated heavy CI job list with one reusable-workflow
call.
- Pinned the call to the reviewed default-branch commit.
- Limited the caller token to actions, contents, and pull request read
access.
## Verification
- actionlint on both workflow files
- Trusted-routing tests
- Confirmed the pinned SHA contains the workflow and is an ancestor of
master
- Full AWS and GitHub runner-boundary verification with routing disabled
## Risks
The check context names change when GitHub expands the reusable
workflow. The rollout verifies the new aggregate contexts before branch
rules change. The repository kill switch remains off during this pull
request.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked a related public PR or described the issue
with the matching template fields
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull request CI to protect changes before merge
> - The trusted reusable workflow will select isolated AWS capacity
> - The active workflow changed while the reusable workflow waited for
merge
> - The reusable policy must contain every current CI policy step before
activation
> - This pull request synchronizes the migration-order check and shell
validation
> - The benefit is one reviewed workflow version with verified job
parity
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12436
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves the pull request CI workflow synchronization before AWS
runner activation.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting CI automation.
**Current behavior**
The active workflow validates migration order. The new reusable workflow
does not yet contain that check.
**Proposed behavior**
Both workflow definitions contain the same heavy jobs and policy steps
before the active workflow becomes a thin caller.
**Reason and benefit**
The synchronization prevents policy drift during the two-step secure
rollout.
**Breaking changes**
None. AWS routing remains disabled.
## What Changed
- Added the current migration-order validation to the trusted workflow.
- Added the existing shellcheck intent annotation to the active
workflow.
- Verified normalized heavy-job parity between both definitions.
## Verification
- actionlint on both workflow files
- Local trusted-routing and normalized workflow-parity tests
- git diff --check
## Risks
Low risk. The migration check already runs in active CI. This change
copies it into the inactive trusted definition. AWS routing stays
disabled.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, tool use, and code execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either linked a related public PR or described the issue
with the matching template fields
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Pull request checks protect the quality of the control plane
> - The current checks depend only on the shared GitHub-hosted runner
limit
> - Busy periods leave many pull request jobs queued even when external
capacity is available
> - Public pull request code must not select or directly access private
runner infrastructure
> - This pull request adds an inactive reusable workflow with a
fail-closed identity gate
> - A later pull request can pin this workflow by its full master commit
SHA
> - The benefit is automatic, controlled access to isolated runner
capacity without changing current CI during bootstrap
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
This improves the pull request CI workflow. It prepares the existing
checks to use an administrator-controlled runner selection.
**Subsystem affected**
Cross-cutting GitHub Actions CI configuration.
**Current behavior**
Every pull request job uses `ubuntu-latest`. Jobs wait when the
GitHub-hosted concurrency limit is full.
**Proposed behavior**
Add a reusable copy of the current PR workflow. A GitHub-hosted gate
validates durable numeric user IDs and current GitHub API state. The
gate emits one runner label. The default and every validation failure
use `ubuntu-latest`. The AWS label is possible only when an
administrator enables it and every identity check passes.
This bootstrap pull request does not change the active
`.github/workflows/pr.yml` caller. A follow-up change will call this
workflow by the full master commit SHA.
**Reason and benefit**
The split bootstrap creates an immutable trust boundary before external
runners are reachable. It also keeps CI automatic for contributors.
Contributors do not select a runner.
**Breaking changes**
None in this bootstrap pull request. The active PR workflow does not
change.
## What Changed
- Added an inactive `workflow_call` copy of the current PR checks.
- Added a GitHub-hosted routing gate that checks the repository ID, pull
request author ID, event sender ID, rerun actor ID, base branch, head
SHA, merge SHA, and current pull request state.
- Made every validation failure select `ubuntu-latest`.
- Pinned every third-party action to a full commit SHA.
- Disabled persistent checkout credentials for all jobs.
- Limited the workflow token to Actions read, contents read, and pull
request read access.
## Verification
- `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml`
- Ran the dedicated workflow routing test harness against
`.github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml`.
- Compared the job keys with `.github/workflows/pr.yml`. The new
workflow contains every existing job plus the gate.
- Verified each pinned action commit against its current GitHub
major-version tag.
## Risks
The gate could route a trusted pull request to the wrong runner if an
identity check is incomplete. The gate checks durable numeric IDs from
the event and current GitHub API state. It checks the rerun actor
separately. It defaults to GitHub-hosted capacity before any validation
runs.
This file is inactive in this pull request. The follow-up caller and
runner-group restriction must use the exact commit that reaches
`master`.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5. The exact serving model ID and
context-window size are not exposed in this environment. The model used
high-reasoning, terminal, GitHub API, browser, and web-research
capabilities.
## 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 an open source app that helps people manage AI agents
for work.
> - The server provides company-scoped routes for company skills and
their test runs.
> - The authorization tests for these routes fail intermittently in
continuous integration.
> - The failure returns HTTP 500 instead of the expected HTTP 403.
> - The test file resets and rebuilds its module graph before each test.
> - This rebuild imports an unmocked issue service and raises a
TypeError.
> - This pull request loads the module graph once per describe block.
> - The change keeps the test result stable and preserves all 53 tests.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The company-skill test-run authorization tests failed intermittently in
continuous integration. One test returned HTTP 500 instead of HTTP 403.
**Expected behavior**
Each unauthorized request must return HTTP 403. The test file must keep
all 53 tests and skip none.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run `npx vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts` before this change.
2. Repeat the run in continuous integration.
3. Observe the intermittent HTTP 500 result in an authorization case.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Commit `651d26a96f6e24811d336759d3e67ff3abb5ec29`.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source. Continuous integration runs the test suite.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This issue affects server test module setup.
**Database mode**
Not database-related.
## What Changed
- Load the mocked route module graph once for each describe block.
- Use the existing `hoistModuleGraph` helper, as the cost service test
does.
- Remove twelve per-test `vi.doUnmock` calls and the redundant module
rebuild.
- Keep the change in
`server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts` only.
## Verification
- Run `npx vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts`.
- Confirm that 53 tests pass and 0 tests skip.
- Confirm that the diff changes only
`server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts`.
- Confirm that all Paperclip continuous integration checks pass.
## Risks
Low risk. The change affects test setup only. It does not change
production code, route behavior, or assertions.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5 (Codex), exact model ID `gpt-5`, tool use and code
execution enabled. The runtime does not expose the context window size.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A release is gated by the release smoke: it installs the published
`paperclipai` artifact into a Docker container and drives the sign-in →
onboarding → first-agent path with Playwright
> - That suite runs only from the release pipeline, never on a pull
request, so it sees the UI only after the UI has already changed
> - The onboarding wizard was rebuilt into the agent arc. The "Name your
organization" step, the "Start Onboarding" launcher, and the agent role
picker are all gone
> - The spec still waited for those, so it failed on its first assertion
and blocked every nightly and beta release
> - The failure was also hard to read. The workflow uploaded no
container logs, because it learned the container's name only after the
harness succeeded, and the harness ran the container with `--rm` and
deleted it before anything read it
> - This pull request rewrites the spec to follow the current arc, and
repairs the log capture at both ends
> - The benefit is that nightly and beta releases are unblocked, and the
next failure arrives with the logs attached
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue. Describing it inline, following
`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml`.
Refs #12274 (removed the company-naming step from the wizard).
Refs #12135 (the previous alignment of this spec, before #12274).
Refs #12316 (open; also edits `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh`, in the
bootstrap helpers rather than the container lifecycle, so the two
changes do
not overlap. Whichever lands second should rebase and re-run).
**What happened?**
The release smoke fails.
`tests/release-smoke/docker-auth-onboarding.spec.ts`
never gets past its first wait:
```
✘ tests/release-smoke/docker-auth-onboarding.spec.ts:43:3 › Docker authenticated onboarding smoke › logs in, completes onboarding, and hires the lead agent
Error: expect(locator).toBeVisible() failed — element(s) not found (timeout 20000ms)
> 33 | await expect(wizardHeading.or(startButton)).toBeVisible({ timeout: 20_000 });
```
The spec waits for an `h3` reading "Name your organization" or a
"Start Onboarding" button. Neither exists. #12274 removed the
company-naming
step; the string now survives only in a code comment and in
`ui/src/components/OnboardingWizard.step.test.tsx`, which asserts it is
*absent*. The steps after the first wait are stale too: the CTA on step
1 is
"Continue" and not "Next", the organization input's placeholder changed,
and
the agent step's `#onboarding-agent-role` picker is gone, so every
onboarding
hire is filed under the neutral `general` role.
The suite runs only from the release pipeline, so nothing on a pull
request
saw the drift. Both `smoke_nightly` and `smoke_beta` call the same
reusable
workflow, so every nightly and every beta was blocked.
The failure also arrived without diagnostics. The job's "Capture Docker
logs"
step is `if: always()`, but it is guarded on `SMOKE_CONTAINER_NAME`,
which the
"Launch Docker smoke harness" step writes to `$GITHUB_ENV` only *after*
the
harness returns. On any failure before that the guard is false, the step
does
nothing, and the upload reports "No files were found". Below that,
`scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh` starts the container with
`docker run -d --rm`, so the `docker stop` in its EXIT trap deletes the
container and its logs together — and a container that crashes on its
own is
removed the instant its process exits.
**Expected behavior**
The spec walks the onboarding arc the app actually presents, and proves
the
company is created, the lead agent is hired, and the first task is
seeded and
dispatched. When the smoke fails, the run's artifact carries the
container's
logs.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run the Release Smoke workflow against a published artifact that
carries
#12274, or run it locally:
`PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=2026.828.0-canary.3 SMOKE_DETACH=true
./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh`
2. Run `pnpm run test:release-smoke` against that container.
3. The single spec fails at `openOnboarding()` after 20 seconds.
4. In CI, open the run's `release-smoke` artifact. It has no
`docker-onboard-smoke.log`.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`2026.828.0-canary.3` (commit 8316ceb0b).
**Deployment mode**
Docker.
**Installation method**
npm / pnpm global install (the container runs `npx
paperclipai@<version>`).
**Node.js version**
v24.20.0 inside the container.
**Relevant logs or output**
```
Running 1 test using 1 worker
✓ 1 [chromium] › tests/release-smoke/docker-auth-onboarding.spec.ts:76:3 › Docker authenticated onboarding smoke › logs in, completes onboarding, and hires the lead agent (7.0s)
1 passed (8.7s)
```
That is the result after this change. Before it, the same command failed
at
the first wait, as quoted above.
## What Changed
- `tests/release-smoke/docker-auth-onboarding.spec.ts` now follows the
current
arc. It signs in, opens `/onboarding`, names the organization and
presses
"Continue" (which creates the company and routes straight to the agent
step,
because onboarding no longer asks for a mission), names the lead and
presses
"Next", presses "Connect" on the default adapter to hire, then presses
"Get started" to launch.
- The spec addresses controls by role and accessible name, or by id
where one
exists (`#onboarding-agent-name`). Step 1's field has no id and no
associated
label, so it is found as the wizard's only text box rather than by its
placeholder copy.
- The spec asserts the hired agent's role is `general`, which is what
the arc
files every onboarding hire under. Every other API assertion is
unchanged.
- The spec navigates to `/onboarding` explicitly and drops any saved
onboarding
draft first, so it can run twice against one instance. The suite retries
once
in CI. It still asserts that a company-less board routes sign-in into
onboarding, guarded on the board actually being empty.
- `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh` accepts `SMOKE_CONTAINER_NAME`,
drops
`--rm`, removes the container itself, and dumps `docker logs` to
`SMOKE_LOG_FILE` before the teardown.
- `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml` pins the container name in the
job's
`env`, so every `always()` step has it before anything runs. The capture
step
refreshes the log from a live container when there is one, keeps the
harness's dump when there is not, and writes a one-line explanation when
there is neither. The upload's paths are literals, and
`if-no-files-found: error` makes a broken diagnostics path fail rather
than
warn.
- `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.test.mjs` pins that wiring. It is added
to
`test:release-registry`, which runs on every pull request.
- `doc/DOCKER.md` documents `SMOKE_CONTAINER_NAME` and `SMOKE_LOG_FILE`.
## Verification
The spec was run against a real container built from the published
`2026.828.0-canary.3` artifact, exactly as the workflow runs it.
```sh
SMOKE_CONTAINER_NAME=release-smoke-onboard \
HOST_PORT=3232 DATA_DIR=<tmp>/smoke-data \
PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=2026.828.0-canary.3 \
SMOKE_READY_TIMEOUT_SECONDS=420 SMOKE_DETACH=true \
SMOKE_METADATA_FILE=<tmp>/release-smoke.env \
SMOKE_LOG_FILE=<tmp>/docker-onboard-smoke.log \
./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh
PAPERCLIP_RELEASE_SMOKE_BASE_URL=http://localhost:3232 \
PAPERCLIP_RELEASE_SMOKE_EMAIL=smoke-admin@paperclip.local \
PAPERCLIP_RELEASE_SMOKE_PASSWORD=paperclip-smoke-password \
PAPERCLIP_PLAYWRIGHT_CHANNEL=chrome \
pnpm run test:release-smoke
```
```
Running 1 test using 1 worker
✓ 1 [chromium] › tests/release-smoke/docker-auth-onboarding.spec.ts:76:3 › Docker authenticated onboarding smoke › logs in, completes onboarding, and hires the lead agent (7.0s)
1 passed (8.7s)
```
The same command was run a second time against the same, now non-empty,
instance. That covers the retry path, and it also passes.
The log capture was verified by making the container die during startup:
```sh
PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=0.0.0-no-such-version \
SMOKE_CONTAINER_NAME=release-smoke-onboard SMOKE_LOG_FILE=<tmp>/fail.log \
./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh
```
`<tmp>/fail.log` was written and carried the cause:
```
npm error code ETARGET
npm error notarget No matching version found for paperclipai@0.0.0-no-such-version.
```
The container was removed afterwards. On `master` this file is never
written,
because `--rm` deletes the container the moment its process exits.
The workflow's capture step was run by hand against three states: a live
container (258 lines), a removed container with the harness's dump
already on
disk (258 lines kept), and neither (a one-line explanation).
Unit coverage:
```sh
pnpm run test:release-registry # 93 tests, 93 pass
```
Nothing under `ui/` changed, so `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui
typecheck` was
not required. `tests/release-smoke` is outside the TypeScript project
references; Playwright compiles it at run time, which the runs above did
three
times.
## Risks
Low risk. Nothing ships to users. The change touches one Playwright
spec, one
smoke script, and one workflow.
Points worth a reviewer's attention:
- **This suite gates every nightly and beta, and it runs only
post-merge.**
`smoke_nightly` and `smoke_beta` both call `release-smoke.yml`, and no
pull
request runs it. Drift between the wizard and this spec is therefore
invisible until a release is already blocked, which is how this bug
reached
a release train. I think the arc deserves an earlier check. The cheapest
version is the one added here: `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.test.mjs`
runs
on every pull request and pins the harness wiring. The full container
smoke
is too slow for the pull request path, but a UI-level test of the arc's
step
sequence would catch exactly this class of drift, and
`ui/src/components/OnboardingWizard.step.test.tsx` is already the right
home for it. I did not add it here, to keep this change to the repair.
- **Dropping `--rm`.** The container is now removed by the script's
cleanup
instead of by Docker. The script already ran `docker rm -f` before
starting,
and the workflow's final step removes it too, so a leaked container is
cleaned up on the next run either way. A developer who kills the script
with
`SIGKILL` will leave a stopped container behind, where previously they
would
not.
- **`if-no-files-found: error` on the upload.** The capture step now
always
writes the log file, so the upload always has at least one path to
match. If
that ever stops being true, the job fails instead of warning. That is
deliberate.
- **The spec drops the saved onboarding draft before it walks.** A stale
draft
makes step 1 skip company creation and hire into the previous run's
company.
That state only exists when the spec runs twice against one instance. A
fresh
release-smoke container never has it.
## Model Used
Claude (Anthropic), Claude Opus, 1M context, extended thinking, agentic
tool
use via Claude Code. The container, the Playwright runs, and the failure
injection were driven as real commands on a local Docker host.
## 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 that people use to manage AI agents
for work.
> - Paperclip applies database migrations in numeric order.
> - Two branches can create the same migration number before either
branch merges.
> - The existing repository check can find duplicates only after both
histories are present in one checkout.
> - A pull request must compare its new migrations with the target
branch before merge.
> - This pull request adds that comparison to the existing PR policy
job.
> - The benefit is an early failure with exact renumbering instructions.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The PR policy check for files in `packages/db/src/migrations`.
**Current behavior**
A stale branch can add the same migration number as the target branch.
The existing check does not compare PR additions with the target branch
migration tip.
**Proposed behavior**
The policy job fails when a new PR migration number is not greater than
every migration on the target branch. The error names the conflict, the
next safe number, and the related files to update.
**Reason and benefit**
This prevents duplicate or out-of-order migration numbers from reaching
`master`. It also gives contributors and agents a direct repair
procedure.
**Breaking changes**
None. The change rejects migration numbering that is already unsafe.
## What Changed
- Added a dependency-free check that compares new PR migration files
with the target branch tip.
- Added the check to the existing PR policy job.
- Added tests for no-op, valid, duplicate, and lower-number cases.
## Verification
- `node --test '.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs'` passed 133 tests.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm build` passed.
- `pnpm test:run` passed 4,889 tests and failed 24 unrelated macOS path
and wildcard-listener tests that also affect the current `master`
checkout.
## Risks
- Low risk. The check reads Git history and does not modify migrations.
- The check permits gaps. It only requires each new migration number to
follow the target branch tip.
- The existing migration check continues to validate duplicate numbers,
snapshots, and journal entries inside the PR.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact serving model ID and context-window size
are not exposed in this session. Reasoning, tool use, web access, and
code execution were enabled.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - A self-hosted install in `authenticated` mode signs users in with
Better Auth, mounted at `/api/auth` over a hand-written Drizzle
`account` table in `packages/db`
> - Better Auth 1.7.0 added a required `issuer` field to that `account`
model, plus a unique index on `(issuer, accountId)`
> - The dependency bump in #11886 changed only `server/package.json` and
the lockfile, so the Drizzle table never grew the column
> - The Drizzle adapter checks the model against the schema on every
write, so `linkAccount` throws and sign-up answers 500 with an empty
body; a fresh install cannot create its first user, and an upgraded
install locks out every existing user
> - This pull request adds the `issuer` column and its unique index, and
migrates the column in with a backfill that covers every existing row
> - The benefit is that sign-up and sign-in work again, on a new install
and after an upgrade
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue. Describing it inline, following
`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml`.
Refs #11886 (the dependency bump that introduced the required field).
Refs #12269 (an earlier attempt at this fix; its backfill covers only
`provider_id = 'credential'`).
**What happened?**
Sign-up fails on a self-hosted install. `POST /api/auth/sign-up/email`
answers HTTP 500 with a zero-byte body. The server log carries:
```
[Better Auth]: The field "issuer" does not exist in the "account" Drizzle schema.
# SERVER_ERROR: [BetterAuthError: The field "issuer" does not exist in the "account" Drizzle schema.]
```
The request writes the `user` row and then fails on the `account` row.
The address is stuck after that: a second sign-up answers 422
`USER_ALREADY_EXISTS`, sign-in answers 401, and password reset answers
400 `RESET_PASSWORD_DISABLED` because the account that would hold the
password does not exist.
An upgraded install is worse. `sign-in/email` matches the credential
account on `account.issuer === 'local:credential'`. Rows written before
the upgrade have no issuer, so every existing user is locked out.
**Expected behavior**
`POST /api/auth/sign-up/email` answers 2xx and writes both the `user`
row and its credential `account` row. `POST /api/auth/sign-in/email`
then answers 2xx and sets a session cookie. An install that upgrades
keeps its existing users.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a server from `master` with
`PAPERCLIP_DEPLOYMENT_MODE=authenticated` against an empty database.
2. `curl -X POST http://127.0.0.1:<port>/api/auth/sign-up/email -H
'Content-Type: application/json' -H 'Origin: http://127.0.0.1:<port>'
--data
'{"name":"A","email":"a@example.com","password":"a-long-password"}'`
3. The response is HTTP 500 with an empty body.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`master` at 4436cf0. The defect starts at 69e8585 (#11886), which moved
Better Auth from 1.6.28 to 1.7.0.
**Deployment mode**
`authenticated`. `local_trusted` does not sign users in, so it is not
affected. Hosted tenants are not affected either: that path resolves the
actor from a trusted header and never reads `account`.
**Database mode**
Both. Embedded PostgreSQL and external PostgreSQL use the same Drizzle
schema.
**Relevant logs or output**
Reproduced in a test by reverting the schema change:
```
stderr | better-auth-credential-signup.integration.test.ts
[Better Auth]: The field "issuer" does not exist in the "account" Drizzle schema.
AssertionError: expected 500 to be 200
```
## What Changed
- `packages/db/src/schema/auth.ts`: adds `issuer` (text, NOT NULL) to
`authAccounts`, and the `(issuer, account_id)` unique index that mirrors
the index Better Auth declares on the model. The field name, type,
requiredness, and index all come from
`@better-auth/core/dist/db/get-tables.mjs` in 1.7.0.
- `packages/db/src/migrations/0230_better_auth_account_issuer.sql`: adds
the column, backfills every existing row, sets NOT NULL, and creates the
unique index.
- `packages/db/src/migrations/meta/0230_snapshot.json` and
`_journal.json`: regenerated with `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db
generate`.
- `packages/db/src/better-auth-account-issuer-migration.test.ts`: new.
Asserts the schema shape, then rewinds the migration on a real database,
seeds pre-upgrade rows, and re-applies it.
-
`server/src/__tests__/better-auth-credential-signup.integration.test.ts`:
new. Real sign-up and sign-in through the Better Auth mount, against the
real Drizzle schema and a migrated PostgreSQL.
- `cli/src/__tests__/worktree.test.ts`: the worktree seed fixture writes
a credential `account` row, so it now writes `issuer` too.
`server/package.json` and `pnpm-lock.yaml` are untouched. The dependency
is correct; the schema was what was missing.
### The issuer values, and where they come from
Better Auth builds these itself, in
`@better-auth/core/src/db/schema/account.ts`:
```ts
export function createLocalAccountIssuer(providerId: string): string {
return `local:${encodeURIComponent(providerId)}`;
}
export function createOAuthAccountIssuer(providerId: string): string {
return `local:oauth:${encodeURIComponent(providerId)}`;
}
```
Sign-up and sign-in both call `createLocalAccountIssuer("credential")`,
so a credential account is `local:credential`. An OAuth account whose
provider declares no `accountIssuer` of its own is
`local:oauth:<providerId>` — no built-in social provider declares one.
The migration writes exactly those two forms:
```sql
ALTER TABLE "account" ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS "issuer" text;
UPDATE "account"
SET "issuer" = CASE
WHEN "provider_id" = 'credential' THEN 'local:credential'
ELSE 'local:oauth:' || "provider_id"
END
WHERE "issuer" IS NULL;
ALTER TABLE "account" ALTER COLUMN "issuer" SET NOT NULL;
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS "account_issuer_account_id_uq" ON "account" USING btree ("issuer","account_id");
```
Two limits are worth stating plainly. The OAuth branch reproduces
`createOAuthAccountIssuer` for provider ids that need no
percent-encoding, which covers every built-in provider id; a provider id
with a character `encodeURIComponent` would escape would get a slightly
different string. And a generic-OAuth provider that sets `accountIssuer`
explicitly (Okta, Auth0, Keycloak, Slack, Line) uses the real issuer
URL, which this migration cannot know. Neither case can arise on
Paperclip today: `createBetterAuthInstance` configures
`emailAndPassword` only and registers no social or generic-OAuth
provider, so every existing row is a credential row. The OAuth branch is
there so the backfill stays total rather than leaving a NULL that aborts
`SET NOT NULL`.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` — passes.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passes.
- `packages/db` suite: 30 files, 107 tests, all pass.
- `npx tsc --noEmit` in `server/` — no error in any changed file. (The
wrapped `pnpm typecheck` builds the runner vendor first, which needs
cargo; that toolchain was not available here, so the pre-existing
"cannot find module" errors from the unbuilt workspace packages remain
in the bare run.)
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` —
passes with the new server suite in the file list.
- The two new tests were confirmed to fail without the fix:
- Reverting `packages/db/src/schema/auth.ts` to its `master` content
makes the server test fail with the reported error and `expected 500 to
be 200`.
- Narrowing the backfill to `WHERE "issuer" IS NULL AND "provider_id" =
'credential'` makes the migration test fail with `column "issuer" of
relation "account" contains null values` — the failure mode of #12269.
- End to end against a server built from this branch, started with
`PAPERCLIP_DEPLOYMENT_MODE=authenticated` on embedded PostgreSQL:
- `POST /api/auth/sign-up/email` → 200 with a user and token.
- `POST /api/auth/sign-in/email` → 200 with a session cookie.
- `GET /api/auth/get-session` → 200 with the session.
- The stored row is `issuer = 'local:credential'`, `provider_id =
'credential'`, `account_id = user_id`, and `pg_indexes` lists
`account_issuer_account_id_uq`.
- `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh` was not used as proof: it installs
`paperclipai` from npm inside the container, so it exercises a published
release rather than this branch.
## Risks
- **Migration.** The migration backfills every existing row before `SET
NOT NULL`, so an install that upgrades keeps working and its users keep
signing in. `account` is one row per user per provider, so the
full-table `UPDATE` and the index build are cheap;
`packages/db/src/table-size-estimates.ts` already classes `account` as
small, and `check:migrations` passes with no new safety finding.
- **New unique index.** `(issuer, account_id)` is the key Better Auth
resolves accounts by, so a duplicate would already be a defect. Better
Auth writes one credential account per user keyed on the user id, so the
pair is unique by construction. An install that somehow holds a
duplicate would fail the index build rather than corrupt anything, and
the migration is a single transaction.
- **Orphaned users are not repaired.** An address that hit the broken
window has a `user` row and no `account` row. This migration does not
delete or repair those rows, so that address stays unusable after the
upgrade: sign-up says the user exists, and there is no credential
account to sign in as or reset. Only installs that ran a build
containing #11886 are affected, and the repair — deleting the orphaned
`user` rows — is a judgment call about live data that does not belong in
an automatic migration.
- **Not a behavior change anywhere else.** Only the `account` table
changes. Hosted tenants resolve their actor from a trusted header and
never read it.
## Model Used
Claude (Anthropic), Claude Opus, 1M context, extended thinking, agentic
tool use via Claude Code.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [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 adapter runtime settles each run through a duplex control
channel
> - A lost channel can leave the remote session-close call without a
usable peer
> - The call has no deadline, so run teardown can wait for the full
adapter timeout
> - This pull request skips that remote call after the runtime latches
channel loss
> - The benefit is faster run finalization while the local cleanup
effects remain
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The run teardown placed a remote session-close call over a duplex
control channel that the runtime had already latched as lost. The call
blocked until the adapter execution timeout released it.
**Expected behavior**
Run teardown should release the local warm handle and continue when the
duplex control channel has already failed.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start an adapter run with the duplex control channel.
2. Latch a channel-loss state before settlement.
3. Use a runtime whose close call never resolves.
4. Confirm that teardown returns without a remote close call.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Commit d966069a78.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. The change applies to the shared adapter runtime.
**Database mode**
Not database-related.
**Additional context**
Pull request #12373 used a larger approach for the same failure. The
board closed that pull request. This pull request contains the smaller
change.
## What Changed
- Add the required readonly `skipRemoteClose` field to the runtime
settlement plan.
- Set the field from the latched channel-loss state on the turn-finalize
plan.
- Set the field to `false` on every other settlement plan.
- Release the warm handle locally before the `end_session` step returns
without the remote call.
- Add a test that drives the lost-channel path through the settlement
sequence.
## Verification
- `./node_modules/.bin/tsc --noEmit -p packages/adapter-utils`
- `./node_modules/.bin/vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts` passes the new
test. Three existing tests fail on the merge base: two
session-fingerprint tests and one workspace-hints test.
- `./node_modules/.bin/vitest run
packages/adapter-utils/src/acpx-engine/run-fault-matrix.test.ts` reports
20 passed.
- Full CI will run on this pull request.
## Risks
The skipped remote close also skips the vendored runtime caller for
`closeBackendSession`. The run can keep a retained client after duplex
loss. A separate follow-up owns that residual. The environment lease
still releases in the teardown `finally` block.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with tool use and code review assistance.
## 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.
> - Paperclip supports opt-in Sentry error monitoring for server and
browser errors.
> - The hosted image must include the server package when an operator
sets SENTRY_DSN.
> - The server package is an optional peer in the source tree, so the
image did not include it.
> - This pull request installs the declared server package in the hosted
image and checks the result.
> - The benefit is a hosted tenant can send server errors without a
manual package install.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists for this change.
**What happened?**
The hosted image did not include the declared @sentry/node server
package. A hosted tenant could set SENTRY_DSN, but the server could not
load the package from the image.
**Expected behavior**
The hosted image must include the exact @sentry/node version from
server/package.json. The self-hosted image must remain without this
optional package.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Build or pull the hosted image.
2. Resolve @sentry/node from the server package path.
3. Compare its version with server/package.json.
4. Confirm that the tsx loader path still resolves.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Commit b6ff556a33ebdbe764b7f495951cd59009776608.
**Deployment mode**
Docker hosted image.
## What Changed
- Add a cloud-server-deps Docker stage that installs the declared
@sentry/node version in isolation.
- Copy the isolated package into the cloud image without changing the
production image.
- Add a probe that checks the tsx loader and the resolved Sentry
version.
- Run the probe after the hosted image push in the Docker workflow.
- Add server tests and update the observability documentation.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/cloud-image-sentry.test.ts`.
- Confirm that the changed test passes in CI.
- Confirm that all pull request checks pass.
- Note that the Docker workflow does not run for pull requests. It runs
after a push to master, for configured tags, or after manual dispatch.
## Risks
- Low risk. The production image body stays unchanged.
- The cloud image adds the declared Sentry package and a small
dependency tree.
- The workflow probe fails if the image loses the tsx loader or resolves
a different Sentry version.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5; exact model version supplied by the execution service;
tool use and code execution; context window not specified.
## 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 server test suite checks budget and cost routes
> - The costs-service test rebuilt the full route module graph before
every test
> - Synchronous graph rebuilds caused long stalls under CPU load
> - This pull request loads the mocked graph once for each describe
block and keeps per-test mock setup
> - The benefit is a stable 17-test file without production code changes
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The costs-service route test rebuilt its full mocked module graph before
every test. Under CPU load, a rebuild sometimes stalled a test past the
15-second timeout.
**Expected behavior**
The test file should load its mocked route graph once for each describe
block while each test keeps isolated mock behavior.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run the costs-service route test under synthetic CPU load.
2. Repeat the file test 30 times.
3. Observe intermittent test timeouts before this change.
**Paperclip version or commit**
The test used the current master branch at the time of this change.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source.
## What Changed
- Add `hoistModuleGraph` to load the mocked route graph once for each
describe block.
- Keep per-test mock setup in `beforeEach` so test isolation stays
unchanged.
- Keep all 17 tests and their assertions.
- Remove the module graph rebuild from the per-test path.
## Verification
- Run `npx vitest run src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts` from
`server/`.
- Confirm that the file reports 17 tests and zero skipped tests.
- Confirm that 30 runs under the same synthetic CPU load report 0.0%
failure after the change, compared with 10.0% before the change.
- Confirm that mutation checks still fail when each authorization guard
is broken.
## Risks
This change affects test setup only. The main risk is weaker test
isolation if a mock keeps state between tests. Each test still re-arms
its mock behavior in `beforeEach`, and the full assertion set remains.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. This bug fix does not add a
core feature.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5. The model used tool calls and code execution. The exact
context window and reasoning configuration were not exposed by the
runtime.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have 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 (the submitting engineer
ran the file before handoff)
- [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
> - New tenants meet it through an onboarding wizard: create your agent,
connect a model, review
> - Those three screens only render for a signed-in account that owns a
provisioned stack, so the only way to look at one was to walk a real
signup
> - Round 4 redesigned all three and shipped them without anyone seeing
them render; when the connect step then failed on a live stack, the
review step behind it could not be reached at all
> - Storybook already mounts the app's provider stack and stubs `/api`,
and already has an `Onboarding/Agent arc` story — but that story
previews `AgentCapsule`, which the wizard stopped using in round 4
> - This pull request mounts the real wizard in Storybook at each step,
and replaces the stale capsule stories with the component the arc
actually renders
> - The benefit is that these screens can be reviewed, and regressions
seen, without provisioning anything
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No existing issue. Describing it inline, following
`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml`.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Reviewing the tenant onboarding wizard. Today it can only be seen by
signing up for a real account and provisioning a real stack.
**Subsystem affected**
`ui` — the onboarding wizard and its Storybook coverage.
**Current behavior**
`OnboardingWizard` renders only for a signed-in account that owns a
company. There is no route, harness, or story that mounts it, so no
screen in the agent arc can be looked at in isolation. The existing
`Onboarding/Agent arc` story previews `AgentCapsule` in
`slot`/`configured`/`online` and describes it as what "the wizard holds
in one tree slot" — round 4 replaced that with `PillGuy` and
`dormant`/`alive`, so the story documents a component the arc no longer
renders.
**Proposed behavior**
Stories that mount the real `OnboardingWizard` at each of the three
steps against the existing Storybook API fixtures, plus stories for
`PillGuy` and its transition.
**Reason and benefit**
Round 4 shipped three redesigned screens that nobody could see. The
connect step then failed on staging, which made the review step
unreachable even with an account — reviewing it required hand-editing
`localStorage`. Stories remove that whole class of problem.
**Breaking changes**
None. Storybook-only; no product code is touched.
## What Changed
- `CreateYourAgent`, `ConnectAModel`, `Review` — the real wizard, per
step.
- `PillStates` and `PillMorph` — the two states, and the transition on a
loop with a toggle. The morph is the arc's payoff and the hardest thing
to judge from a still.
- Replaces the `AgentCapsule` stories in this file with `PillGuy`.
`AgentCapsule` is still used by `DesignGuide` and keeps its coverage
there.
- Four routes added to the Storybook fetch fixtures:
`/api/instance/settings`, `…/environments`, `…/adapters/:type/models`.
The empty environment list is the cloud-tenant shape, and also the state
that produces the "no managed sandbox environment is available" notice —
worth being able to look at rather than only meeting it on a live stack.
## Three properties of the wizard the stories had to respect
Each of these cost a debugging cycle, so they are documented at the call
site:
1. **The draft is seeded during render, not in an effect.** Roughly
twenty `useState(saved?.x ?? default)` initializers read the restored
blob exactly once, so a draft written after mount arrives too late.
2. **Nothing mounts until the companies list settles.** The wizard's own
mount gate waits on `isFetching`, but that query is *disabled* until the
account settles, and a disabled query is not fetching. Mounting straight
away gets an inner wizard that reads a null draft, falls back to
`initialStep`, and then persists that back over the seed. A real session
never hits this because the dashboard has already loaded the list.
3. **The review step opens with no `initialStep`.** An explicit option
takes precedence over saved state by design, so passing one clamps 5 to
4 and lands on Connect.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run src/components/OnboardingWizard.test.tsx
src/components/OnboardingWizard.step.test.tsx` — 44 tests, all passing.
- `npx tsc -p tsconfig.json --noEmit` — no new errors.
(`src/lib/sentry.*` reports pre-existing missing-type errors for
`@sentry/browser` on master.)
- Each of the three step stories loaded in a running Storybook and read
back:
- `create-your-agent` → "STEP 1 OF 3 / Create your first agent / Name /
Next"
- `connect-a-model` → "STEP 2 OF 3 / Connect a model / Paperclip works
with your existing subscription or API keys. / Claude Code / Codex /
Advanced settings / Connect"
- `review` → "STEP 3 OF 3 / Let's get started... / Darnold is ready to
work! / Get started"
One difference from a real walk, worth knowing before treating a story
as ground truth: the review story has no Back button, because
`entryStep` is 5 there and back-navigation is bounded by where the run
entered.
## Risks
Low. Storybook-only — no product code, routes, or bundles change. The
four added fetch fixtures are inside the Storybook mock and cannot
affect the app.
The one thing to watch: these stories mount the real wizard, so a future
change to how it restores drafts or decides its initial step can break
them. That is arguably the point — the stories would be the first place
it shows — but it does mean they are coupled to internals rather than to
a prop surface, and the three notes above are what a maintainer needs.
## Model Used
Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, with tool use:
file editing, shell, and browser automation for loading and reading back
each story.
## 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
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Sandbox providers let agents run in remote environments
> - The Daytona login flow creates a home directory for each login
session
> - The create path ran owner, mode, and link-type checks inside the
sandbox
> - These checks cannot protect the host because sandbox code can change
the checked state
> - This pull request uses one `mkdir -p` command and removes the unused
helper scripts
> - The benefit is a simpler login path with the host-side credential
checks unchanged
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The Daytona login flow used helper scripts and inside-sandbox checks for
the session-home directory. The standalone package build also copied a
scripts directory that no longer existed after the helper scripts were
removed.
**Expected behavior**
The login flow must create the session home with one `mkdir -p` command.
The package build must complete without copying a removed directory.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Build the Daytona plugin package.
2. Start a Daytona device login.
3. Inspect the session-home create command and the package output.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Commit `dfdf5914ba37caa1e3bc380236844a7d76237e12`.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source.
## What Changed
- Replace the session-home helper checks with one `mkdir -p` command.
- Remove the two unused session-home helper scripts.
- Remove the dead build copy steps for the deleted scripts directory.
- Add coverage for a failed session-home create command.
- Keep the host-side credential reader unchanged.
- Keep the Kubernetes provider package unchanged.
## Verification
- Package unit tests pass: 220 passed, 6 skipped.
- Package typecheck passes.
- The package build passes and emits 56 files in `dist`.
- The roadmap check confirms that this change stays within the planned
sandbox-provider work.
- GitHub search found no open duplicate or related pull request.
## Risks
The login flow no longer reports owner, mode, or link-type errors from
inside the sandbox. Those checks did not protect the host. The host-side
credential reader still uses no-follow path opens and accepts only a
regular file with owner and exact mode `0600`. Risk is low because this
change removes checks that cannot enforce the host security boundary.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. This pull request updates an
existing sandbox-provider path, not a new core feature.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime provides tool use and code execution.
The runtime does not expose the context window size or a more specific
model identifier.
## 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
> - Sandbox providers run agent work in isolated environments
> - The Daytona inbound file-sync path writes selected sandbox data to
host paths
> - Its in-sandbox lexical and realpath guards do not protect host-write
or Paperclip API authority
> - This pull request removes those guards and simplifies the inbound
file-sync commands
> - The benefit is a smaller path with the same outbound controls and
host extraction validation
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public issue exists for this change. This pull request describes the
enhancement.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
It improves inbound file and directory synchronization for the Daytona
sandbox provider.
**Subsystem affected**
`packages/plugins` — the Daytona sandbox provider.
**Current behavior**
The inbound path checks lexical and realpath confinement inside the
sandbox. It uses file-descriptor-pinned commands for file promotion,
archive extraction, and decompression. These checks do not protect
host-write or Paperclip API authority.
**Proposed behavior**
Remove the inbound lexical and realpath checks. Use `mv -f` for file
mappings, `tar -xf` for directory mappings, and `zstd -d -o` for
decompression. Keep outbound source checks, atomic snapshot downloads,
and tarball member validation.
**Reason and benefit**
The sandbox boundary protects the relevant authorities. The removed
guards run inside that boundary and only produce early errors. The
simpler commands reduce code and preserve the controls that protect the
host boundary.
**Breaking changes**
The inbound path no longer rejects mappings because of sandbox-side
lexical or realpath confinement. Outbound source validation and tarball
member validation remain unchanged.
## What Changed
- Remove lexical and realpath confinement guards from inbound file
mappings, inbound directory mappings, and post-upload command working
directories.
- Replace file-descriptor-pinned promotion with one `mv -f` command per
file mapping.
- Replace file-descriptor-pinned extraction with one `tar -xf` command
per directory mapping.
- Replace retained-descriptor decompression with `zstd -d -o`.
- Keep outbound source guards, atomic snapshot-and-download, and tarball
member validation.
- Update Daytona tests for the new command shapes and remove tests for
the removed rejections.
## Verification
- The author ran the Daytona package test suite: 232 tests passed and 6
tests skipped.
- The author ran the Daytona package typecheck successfully.
- Review the diff and confirm it changes only the three Daytona files
named in this description.
- Confirm the Storybook check may report `SKIPPED` as an expected
repository state.
## Risks
The inbound path now trusts the sandbox boundary for host-write
protection. A later change that gives sandbox code host-write or
Paperclip API authority could require new guards. Outbound source checks
and archive member validation remain in place. No Kubernetes or core
runtime file changes exist.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5; exact model version and context window were not provided;
tool use and code review assistance.
## 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
> - Paperclip uses database clients and embedded PostgreSQL test
fixtures
> - A fixture stopped its embedded PostgreSQL cluster while clients
still held connections
> - The postgres.js driver then scheduled a write on a stopped
connection
> - That write escaped the timer callback and caused a test process to
exit with an error
> - This pull request closes registered clients before the fixture stops
its cluster
> - The benefit is stable test teardown and clear failure reporting in
continuous integration
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: #10869
**What happened?**
An embedded PostgreSQL test fixture stopped its cluster while database
clients still held open connections. The postgres.js driver then
scheduled a deferred write on a dead connection. The write caused an
unhandled error after the test shard reported success.
**Expected behavior**
The fixture closes all live clients for its cluster before it stops the
embedded PostgreSQL cluster. Tests then finish without a deferred write
on a dead connection.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run the database regression test with the embedded PostgreSQL
fixture.
2. Stop the fixture while its database client still has an open
connection.
3. Observe the deferred write and the process exit status.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Branch base: bdd8f1bed. Change head:
93e85d2ba1.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev with the embedded PostgreSQL test fixture.
**Installation method**
Built from source with pnpm.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This change covers database test infrastructure.
**Database mode**
Embedded PGlite.
**Additional context**
The change keeps client references weak and keys them by host and port.
It does not retain credentials. It also handles connection URLs that the
driver accepts when the URL parser rejects them.
## What Changed
- Add a registry for live database clients in the database package.
- Close registered clients before the embedded PostgreSQL fixture stops
its cluster.
- Add a regression test for the teardown race.
- Handle driver-compatible URLs that the standard URL parser rejects.
- Add cleanup for the shared route test harness.
## Verification
- Run the full `packages/db` suite.
- Run `tsc --noEmit` in `packages/db`.
- Run the server suite that uses `route-test-harness.ts`.
- Run the teardown regression test five times.
- Confirm that the negative control fails three times.
- Confirm that no shard reports green tests and exits with an error.
## Risks
The registry changes client cleanup for embedded test fixtures. Weak
references limit retained memory in long-lived processes. The registry
uses host and port only, so it does not retain credentials. No
migration, schema, API, telemetry, authentication, or cryptography
change exists.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code review support, standard
reasoning mode. The implementing engineer supplied the code and
verification results.
## 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 server test suite checks question response delivery and wake
claims
> - One test used wall-clock time and could start a second delivery
under load
> - The second delivery reused one promise resolver and could hang for
15 seconds
> - This pull request uses the injected clock and one resolver for each
wakeup
> - The benefit is a deterministic test that fails at once if a second
wakeup occurs
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The wake-claim lease test slept for 70 milliseconds before it ran the
pending sweep. Under load, the lease could look stale during that
interval. The sweep then started a second delivery. The second delivery
reused one promise resolver, so the test hung until the 15-second suite
timeout.
**Expected behavior**
The test must control the time used by the service. One wakeup must use
one resolver. An unexpected second wakeup must fail at once.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run the question response delivery test under CPU load.
2. Let the test sleep before the pending sweep.
3. Observe that a second delivery can start and the test can reach the
15-second timeout.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Commit `0dd735e53a5cc9f6d3395834b826dfb0b1da2ea9`.
**Deployment mode**
Built from source with the server test suite.
**Installation method**
Built from source.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific (core test issue).
**Database mode**
Not database-related.
**Additional context**
The change affects one test file. It does not change production source
code.
## What Changed
- Drive the test with the service's injected clock.
- Give each wakeup call its own promise resolver.
- Assert that lease renewal advances the last attempt time.
- Assert that the wakeup runs one time and the attempt count stays at 1.
## Verification
- Run `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/services/__tests__/question-response-delivery.test.ts`.
- The changed file reports 29 passing tests.
- Run the changed file 25 times, including 5 runs under CPU load.
## Risks
Low risk. The change affects one test file and test setup only. It does
not change production behavior.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-5, exact runtime model ID supplied by the Paperclip agent
environment, tool use and code review assistance.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` /
`Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the
relevant issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Dotta
Nicky Leach
github-actions[bot]
Melbin J Paulose
Devin Foley
Tonio